On religion

[BrilloPad]

Was the Virgin Mary raped?

'Mother Mary Was Essentially Raped,' Mourdock Says While Digging Self Into Deeper Hole | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[MyUserName]

Tacitus. Don't forget him.

No forgotten but he was not born until after the Jesus is claimed to have died.

Your insistance that there is no real evidence that Jesus existed is also irrational.

Well there is a lot of hearsay and one historical comment by one author who's reliability is suspect.

Your argument has degenerated into "nya nya nya, not listening, nya nya nya".

Actually I have simply argued my position, agreed that Speling Bee made a good point and that it had merit and then agreed that I might have been too harsh on Josephus.

And, btw - your "I will let Bart D. Ehrman ... provide my closing statement" comment earlier didn't half make you sound like an Attempting, and failing, to sound scholarly.

At least I have not descended into name calling and childish insults.

You have proven beyond doubt that you are an excellent practitioner of it. .

Yawn.

Mine is not an argument from ignorance. .

Are you sure?

Christus fits with Jesus.
Executed under Tiberius fits with Jesus.

You have no better fit

Isn't this an argument from ignorance? Perhaps I am misremembering my falacies.

[speling bee]

No forgotten but he was not born until after the Jesus is claimed to have died.



Well there is a lot of hearsay and one historical comment by one author who's reliability is suspect.



Actually I have simply argued my position, agreed that Speling Bee made a good point and that it had merit and then agreed that I might have been too harsh on Josephus.



At least I have not descended into name calling and childish insults.



Yawn.


Are you sure?



Isn't this an argument from ignorance? Perhaps I am misremembering my falacies.

Tacitus was born 40 years after the death of Augustus, but that is where his Annals starts, and we give that book a high level of credence.

Dismiss such works and pretty much all that we know (from a narrative historical perspective) of the Roman world is the order of Emperors from the numismatic record and whatever we pick up from inscriptions and Egyptian scraps of papyrus.

Individually, sources are weak. Contradictions show those weaknesses. But look at where they agree, that the Christ was executed in the reign of Tiberius under the governorship of Pontius Pilate, and then look at what the most likely truth is.

[MyUserName]

But look at where they agree, that the Christ was executed in the reign of Tiberius under the governorship of Pontius Pilate, and then look at what the most likely truth is.

But my problem is the complete lack of any sources within his life time. I simply cannot find it credible that someone who was so influential simply went utterly unnoticed by anyone other than those who 40 years or so later began writing the gospels - apart possibly from Josephus, I will have a glance to see whether I was too harsh when I first dismissed him. If you combine this with the NT writers being very heavily invested in the Jesus idea then I find it even more suspicious.

[NotAllThere]

But my problem is the complete lack of any sources within his life time. I simply cannot find it credible that someone who was so influential simply went utterly unnoticed by anyone other than those who 40 years or so later began writing the gospels .

Well, people with better academic credentials than you do find it credible - Richard Dawkins for one - so I'll stick with them.

Your objections are very weak, and I suspect that you are one of those people who doesn't have the nous to know when they're so ignorant about a subject that really they're not qualified to comment. Fine - believe in fairy tales if you want to.

And yes, I do know what ad hominem arguments are.

btw - Paul wrote about Jesus about 20 years. So that's the first documented mention - not 40 years after his death.

[d000hg]

No forgotten but he was not born until after the Jesus is claimed to have died.

Most historians DO write about stuff from before they were born.

Is it possible you're confusing a historian with a journalist?

[speling bee]

Was the Virgin Mary raped?

'Mother Mary Was Essentially Raped,' Mourdock Says While Digging Self Into Deeper Hole | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Great find.

At press time, multiple male Senate candidates in their 60s remained divided between those who believe pregnancies resulting from rape are biologically impossible and those who believe they are the divine will of God.

[MyUserName]

Well, people with better academic credentials than you do find it credible - Richard Dawkins for one - so I'll stick with them.

You are welcome to, I would prefer to research it and decide for myself - although I might look at academics as part of that research.

Out of interest, what do you estimate my academic credentials actually are?
I promise I will tell you if you are right.

Your objections are very weak, and I suspect that you are one of those people who doesn't have the nous to know when they're so ignorant about a subject that really they're not qualified to comment.

You are as welcome to your opinions as I am to mine.

Fine - believe in fairy tales if you want to.

I will stick with atheism for now, thanks.

And yes, I do know what ad hominem arguments are.

Erm ... good?

btw - Paul wrote about Jesus about 20 years. So that's the first documented mention - not 40 years after his death.

Ooh yes, good point.

Most historians DO write about stuff from before they were born.

They are welcome to. Just as I am welcome to find their writings suspect.

[speling bee]

But my problem is the complete lack of any sources within his life time. I simply cannot find it credible that someone who was so influential simply went utterly unnoticed by anyone other than those who 40 years or so later began writing the gospels - apart possibly from Josephus, I will have a glance to see whether I was too harsh when I first dismissed him. If you combine this with the NT writers being very heavily invested in the Jesus idea then I find it even more suspicious.

What we have is a lack of contemporaneous extant sources. Look at the link to see the very thin line of manuscripts through which we have the corpus of the poetry of Catullus. Poetry of Catullus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catullus was a very significant poet, and was almost lost to us. Why would we expect a provincial historian to survive when writing about someone who at the time was not a significant figure, just another local troublemaker in political terms? And we must also consider that the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 would not have been a conducive factor to manuscript survival.

So there may have been contemporary accounts which are lost, or maybe not.

[speling bee]

You are welcome to, I would prefer to research it and decide for myself - although I might look at academics as part of that research.

Out of interest, what do you estimate my academic credentials actually are?
I promise I will tell you if you are right.


You are as welcome to your opinions as I am to mine.


I will stick with atheism for now, thanks.



Erm ... good?


Ooh yes, good point.


They are welcome to. Just as I am welcome to find their writings suspect.

The writings are suspect. But I am genuinely interested to understand why you think it more likely (or near certain as you appear to think) that the literary evidence and early Christian Church came from a fictitious figure, than from a real figure whose life story has been bent and embellished to support a faith position.