Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 2303

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Forgive me, but I did not use the phrase "historical certainty" anywhere in my reply. Please do not attempt to ascribe words to me that I never used.

Additionally, the event reported by Tacitus, an actual Roman senator and somewhat prolific historian who was neither a Christian nor a sympathizer, could hardly be described as "a vague passage."

As with all great empires, the Roman Empire kept quite meticulous records. And as both a Senator and a historian, Tacitus would most certainly have had access to them all and would, and did, use them. And given the high degree of accuracy found elsewhere throughout his writings, it is illogical to conclude that on this one point he would so definitively report on an event he had not first investigated and verified. Especially given that most certainly "Pilatus" would have submitted a report of the execution, just has he had for previous such events (one of which reports had him previously recalled to Rome for chastisement following one of his more brutally violent acts of Jewish suppression in Jerusalem).

Thus, to opine that Tacitus would have reported something that was not well supported by the historical evidences at his disposal does not seem justified. And there is nothing at all vague in his reporting that someone called "Christus" (a Latinized rendering of the Jewish term for "Anointed One") had been put to death by "Pilatus," one of Rome's own rulers in Judea, and whose followers ("Christianos" or perhaps "Chrestianos," as Tacitus called them) were accused by Nero of starting the great fire of Rome.

Obviously, if Tacitus ... or anyone else in the Roman Empire ... could have proved by their own records that this "Christus" never existed or that the claims of him having been executed by one of their own governors was a lie, he surely would have said so. Such a statement with the records to back them up would have severely if not fatally discredited the "Christian" movement if it were proved that such a man never even existed. And yet... Tacitus did no such thing; quite the opposite, in fact. He freely admits the existence of the man known as "Christus." The only explanation why he would have done so is if the Roman records then available, as well as common public knowledge of all who witnessed the public execution, both Roman and Jewish, would have made such a false claim laughable. Thus, it could not have been plausibly denied.

Thus... again... this is not "vague" at all; it is "smoking gun" evidence from a bonafide, 1st-Century, pagan, Roman Senator of the actual existence of a man called "Christus," executed by "Pilatus," whose followers were subsequently called "Christianos," and who were persecuted by Nero for supposedly causing the fire in Rome.

Thus... regardless the exaggerations and false "divinity" ascribed to this "Christus," yet he most certainly did actually exist in history.
"Forgive me, but I did not use the phrase "historical certainty" anywhere in my reply. Please do not attempt to ascribe words to me that I never used."

I'm sorry. Most non-idiots realize when I use "scare quotes" I'm not quoting them.

Yes, I know you didn't use the term "scare quotes".

Are you really trying to channel Josh McDowell? If you are, it's actually a brilliant piece of troll theater.
And most "non-idiots" do not attempt to reply with ad hominem rejoiners. I am not a troll nor have I responded like one. If you wish to take issue with any of my points, I would welcome any such discussion. Thank you.
You don't even know what ad hominem is, do you?

Ad hominem isn't a "personal attack". The way that, well, idiots, use it on the internet is to flag what they consider to be a non-civil bit of discourse. It's code for "You didn't speak to me with the respect I haven't earned".

Strickly speaking, ad hominem (literally "to the man") involves bringing up an irrelevant bit of personal information that has no bearing on the argument.

So, to say "Khemin's assertion that 2+2=4 is wrong because he's a goat fucker" is ad hominem. However, writing "Khemin's supposed objective defense of goat fucking is biased by the fact that he's a goat fucker" is actually relevant.

So, anyone who goes off on a red herring butt-hurt snit, adopting high dungeon because I used scare quotes which obviously weren't any attempt to quote anyone, I surmise is an idiot.

In addition, although this is not strictly relevant, you are also probably a goat fucker.

I do, however, apologize for calling you a troll.
Your understanding of ad hominem is as faulty as the rest of your logic, frankly. As you were using subtle personal attack as part of your argument against my own, this does indeed constitute ad hominem, despite the fact that it might not fit the simplistic middle-school example of same you selected as illustration.

Yet why attempt to argue with someone with the intellectual agility of a small soapdish?

Oh... and as your avatar looks surprising like a goat from here, you can consider yourself soundly fucked.

Ball's in your court... goat-boy.
"Your understanding of ad hominem is as faulty as the rest of your logic, frankly."

Oh, OK, if you say so. I stand corrected by your inerrant assertion.

"and as your avatar looks surprising like a goat from here"

Really? I designed that thing ages ago, and it's the logo for my website, and yet I never noticed that something with horns like that (technically a cow skull with lemur eyes perched on a 19th century figure wearing a frock coat holding a knife behind its back, but whatever) might resemble a goat.

Of course, goats have horns that don't jut out from the skull, they curve backwards, but as we have learned that any assertion you make that would normally sound stupid, ignorant or like you just won first place at Butt-Plug-a-Palooza from someone else, carries the weight of omniscience when it comes from you.

No. Seriously. Horns = Goat. I never noticed that before. Almost Randian in its use of the Law of Identity to reach a Higher Truth™. Your powers of observation are remarkable.

From your photo, you at first looked like a sheep, but then I realized that tampon was actually the look you were going for.

Quite successful, really. Kudos to you, sir!
Thank you for your kind words. As a "newbie" to this group, they are appreciated.

Oh... and I wholeheartedly agree re: the entirely separate ... and disturbing... issue that is the continually mutating phenomenon of "Christianity"! I hope it was apparent that this was not the point nor the focus of my reply. The question I principally answered, along with additional observations regarding the man, himself, was primarily this... "Do you believe Jesus existed?"
I will second that. OTOH, the school-boy name-calling has given me a great deal of amusement. I haven't laughed so hard for weeks. Thanks, at least for that. Now cool it, both of you.
Up yours, fussy-britches ;)
That's _Ms_ Fussy-Britches, _Ma'am_, if you please. Or if you don't please. Whatever. :-)
Did you get the fruit basket? How about the complementary poster?

Thank you kindly for the complimentary poster.

Of course, not having had much intimate contact with goats, unlike yourself apparently (you do have this "lovely" poster, after all), I was not as aware of the differences between your avatar and an actual goat.

Then again... looking at the poster and then at your avatar... I seem to continue finding far more similarities than disparities. Hmmm....

Well, if not a goat then perhaps ... an ass?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service