FathomFFI

I have been waiting for someone to bring in any facts against the Tacitus text.

Looks like it's not going to happen.

FathomFFI

You failed to explain how Pilate crucifying Christus is a superstition.

You also failed to explain how a rumor of Pilate crucifying Christus in Rome has never surfaced, since this "pernicious superstition" also came out of Rome, according to your interpretation.

And finally, you are using a translation used by Dennis McKinsey, a man who has been so utterly refuted that even he no longer holds to his old 1985 assertions.

spamandham

The typical range for Mark, generally accepted as the first of the canonical Gospels (and possibly the actual first Gospel), is 65-80 CE with an upper bound of 105 CE. However, Detering, who most certainly is reputable, allows for a post 135 CE date.

It is not known when precisely Tacitus wrote the portion of Annals that mentions Christians, but it certainly would have been prior to his death in 117 and possibly much earlier than that, seeing as the Annals are a collection compiled over a period of time.

So, yes, I am indeed unaware of what you stated.

An argument from authority that isn't even accurate, just isn't very interesting.

If you don't get the basic facts correct this is just a waste of time.

FathomFFI

When I was much younger, I viewed religion as totally bogus, and Jesus was just an old wives tale; a myth. I mean, a man walking on the water? Raising the dead? Flying up into heaven? Get serious.

But then later in life I began to look at his philosophy, as opposed to looking at it as if it was a religion. I couldn't help but conclude that "somebody with a brain" had to create that philosophy. So I tried to find out who.

As I looked for the answer, historical evidence began to surface for the historicity of Jesus. After much study, I could determine that he existed as a man, but his life was embellished in the bible.

They did the same thing to Muhammad, the so-called prophet of Islam. They had him flying a horse to heaven, splitting the moon, et al. But nobody denies that Muhammad ever existed just because of those embellishments.

Roman emperors were also called deities, and yet we know they existed. The same for many historical figures.

So I said, "Why not Jesus?"

And the evidence lead me to the knowledge that he historically existed.

FathomFFI

Hermann Detering? Get serious. He's not even in the loop. He is an anti-Paulian theologian with views so radical and assertive that the real scholars don't take any notice of him.

Tacitus is a 1st century writer, since he was born mid first century.

You are aware that an accusation of argument from authority carries little or no weight to a collective intelligence?

Read the argument to authority accusation closely. It applies to a singular authority, and not so much as to a collective of authorities. Keep in mind that the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority doesn't make its conclusion untrue, nor does it make it unreasonable to believe the argument.

But when you go against a collective of authorities, the arguments against will in fact require another collective of authorities to be in any way substantiative.

Since you have not provided a collective of authorities, then your argument is without credulity.

gregor

But "we" like his No True Scotsman fallacies and anecdotal stories of his mis-spent yuut.

2-J

Ancient history scholars are the best people to turn to when you want to do ancient history. But not necessarily the best people to turn to when you want to enquire into the nature of the field itself, on an epistemological issue. The same is true for (e.g.) maths (mathematicians) and art (artists) etc. Hardly controversial.

Roger Pearse

Just some incidental remarks.

It would be most interesting to see the contemporary (up to 100 years after, say) documents which indicate that Acts is unreliable! Isn't asking biblical scholars whether they believe in the bible is generally a religious question (and so answered de fide rather than professionally)?

I wonder if Philo would altogether agree with that? (Or Caligula!)

But yes, it was a religio licita.

Well the change from the first status to the second is an interesting question, isn't it? Acts indicates the first status, and the consequent disinterest of the Roman officials in Christianity; literature subsequent to 64 AD indicates the second.

I don't know of anyone who has, I admit.

But can I ask whether this very positive statement is based on any actual research? You see, I have a feeling that digging around in 19th century atheist invectives might discover all sorts of things. That isn't me being cute, incidentally; I'm peripherally interested in the question, and if I had more time might dig into it myself. But is it worth the time merely to demonstrate to us that some of our fellow men are dipsticks? I think that we know this anyway...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

I'm not sure what this means. There are many Christian Biblical scholars who discount the historical value of Acts, but I doubt that they derived that from their faith as opposed to their examination of the texts.

And surely you know that there are few contemporary documents that survive. The author of Acts appears to have used Josephus as a source, so some agreement is expected there.

There was a thread where we challenged anyone to find a skeptic who ever doubted the existence of Pilate. So, yes, there has been a search.

No one could find anyone who ever doubted Pilate's existence, but lot of Christian apologists claimed that skeptics had until the archeological proof was supplied.

Roger Pearse

I remember the thread vaguely. But isn't this just that we haven't met anyone who can offer chapter and verse, not that anyone has looked? We can't say that it didn't happen; not until someone has done more than say "prove it to me."

As I say, I don't know. But surely someone could read around the subject in 19th century pamphlets.

All the best,

Roger Pearse