Historical evidence for Jesus Christ - Part 1: Tacitus - Simon Peter Sutherland

[Zwemer100]

ok Jessika no worries have a good day, feel free to ask away from jason.

[Zwemer100]

Ok Jesika let me give you a riddle, do you agree with Heidegger or not?Much of philosophy is still trying to deal with his ideas.This has much to do with your questions,for you assume an epistomology,you assume it without giving us any justification,now you have some work to do,from Jason.

[Zwemer100]

If it was recorded you would see it as myth.So What is the big deal Jessika?Your intellectual foundations are bankrupt, if you want me to help you see why that is I can help, but don't be throwing your little intellectual riddles thinking you are clever and can shut us up.From Jason.

[JessikaTheGamer]

@Zwemer100 I am not trying to be clever, I study theology and these are some of the things we discuss, I wanted to know your thought on the matter. To have a bit of a philosophical discussion, where the meaning is not "winning", but to get a better understanding about how the other person views things. It was not my intention to come off as rude.

[JessikaTheGamer]

I have no real quarrel of Jesus as a historical person, who had disciples and was the foundation for a new religion (all religions started in some way right?).

The problem I find is the claim that Jesus was the son of God. And some of the events that took place during his life/death, that has not been recoreded in any other texts then the bible (which seems odd if they were true). Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, don't you agree?

[Zwemer100]

@JessikaTheGamer No I certainly don't agree for the sake of eye witness accounts. You cannot merely look at the Bible as a book and say that is that, it is a collection of individual works which are historical accounts, such as Johns gospel, written by Jesus' closest friend before AD 66, likewise Marks gospel which was written by Peter at the hand of Mark, thus must was writ before Peters death in AD 66 and Luke was written by Pauls disciple, before AD 60. Likewise Matthew, writ before AD 66...

[JessikaTheGamer]

@Zwemer100 Eye witness accounts (in my opinion) are given a to high credibility. There are thousands of eye witness accounts in almost all religions (and in events like alien sightings, abductions etc). In a scientific setting eye witness accounts aren't really worth that much in the form of evidence.

To my knowledge the oldest gospel is Mark which was written almost 40 years after Jesus death, this also makes it's reliance questionable.

[Zwemer100]

@JessikaTheGamer Also, the term gospel is not found on the original titles of what we now know as the gospels, they had no titles, even the early Gk New Testaments say "the according to..." or "glad tidings of..."

It is an error to only view the gospels as a set of narratives from one book, they were written as individuals, yet divinely compiled by the spirit and the Church.

Also, I don't agree on Mark being written 40 years after Jesus, that is only a claim, based on critical scholarship.

[JessikaTheGamer]

@Zwemer100 Also I see no reason to distrust my professors (or literature) on the point of Mark being written 40 years after Jesus died.

[Zwemer100]

@JessikaTheGamer Tell me Jessika, has trusting in men or their words proved beneificial in your life?

[JessikaTheGamer]

@Zwemer100 I'm sorry, I find this question a bit cryptic. What exactly mean by "has trusting in men or their words proved beneficial in your life?". I would say it all depends on who, about what. And beneficial, in what sense?

[Zwemer100]

@JessikaTheGamer Oh Jessika, why do you over complex my words, I think you know what I am talking about Jessika.

[JessikaTheGamer]

@Zwemer100 It's not my intention to over complicate the question, but I don't find it at straight forward as you might have intended it to be. I'll try to answer my best anyway.

I guess I would have to say that trusting in men and their words have proven itself beneficial to me yes.

[JessikaTheGamer]

@Zwemer100 So may I ask what purpose of the question was?

[Zwemer100]

@JessikaTheGamer Also, your claim that Jesus as the son of God is only stated in the Biblical documents, that is untrue. There are around 250 or so ancient documents written between 1st - 3rd centuries that refer to Jesus as the son of God, even God Himself. I have spoke on one here, a letter which may have been written by Jesus, you can find that on zwemer100.

There are many early gospels, such as Clement, Barnabus, Polycarp, the lost gospel of Peter, the Didache, the preachiing of peter etc

[JessikaTheGamer]

@Zwemer100 Well maybe a text that wasn't considered a gospel would validate your claim. Like when the dead walked the streets of Jerusalem, it seems like such an event should have been recored by others then the "insiders". Or other records of Jesus miracles from outside (non bias) sources.

[Zwemer100]

@JessikaTheGamer We don't know what was written about or not, because for one, Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 66, and the Roman empire was likewise destroyed in the 5th century. But we have found many, or should I say, many have been found such as the Nag Hammadi library and the lost gospels etc...

[JessikaTheGamer]

@Zwemer100 I personally think that one should look with a critical eye on things, and certainly extraordinary things. Unfortunately many things have been lost in history, things we will never know about. But I don't think that it means one can "paste" together what we do know and say it is the truth. So far, every mystery ever solved has not been anything extraordinary. It is only perceived as extraordinary or "magical" before i could be explained.

[arbutwhoo]

One could make an argument that you've provided evidence for the reality of early christians, but where is the historical evidence of Jesus Christ? If that is the valuable evidence that Jesus was crucified for my sin, please don't leave it with me. I wouldn't fancy your chances in a court of law.

[Zwemer100]

@arbutwhoo Oh, here comes the militant atheists again. It is not mere evidence for early Christians, he states as a historical writing that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. You are trying to sow doubt in the minds of those who have and will watch this.

Quote; "Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governer of Judea, Pontius Pilate" Tacitus. Anals. 8

Fact.

[arbutwhoo]

@Zwemer100 Now try to keep up. He is reporting an event that supposedly happened before he was born. Is it then not likely that his information came from early christians? So the information was not necessarily factual. Even if that were to be considered as evidence that Jesus existed you still have a long way to go before you prove his death was for my sin.

I'm merely explaining my own doubts. Your militant atheist persecution complex is way out of control.

Don't pretend to be stating facts.

[Zwemer100]

@arbutwhoo That is rediculous. Tacitus was writing this for the Roman empire, officials, he never got his information off Christians but off the clear evidence that that the Romans gained through their own records and from Jerusalem at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 66, you appear to be twisting the facts, or should I say, attempting to twist the facts.

[arbutwhoo]

@Zwemer100 Ok. What evidence do you have that his information came from Roman records? The actual Roman records, from which Tacitus supposedly sourced his information, would be stronger evidence that a person named Jesus existed & was crucified.

Then all you need prove is that Jesus died for my sin. Plain sailing!

[Zwemer100]

@arbutwhoo Tacitus uses the word "Christ" which is the latin "Christi" from the greek "Christos" from the Hebrew "Messiah" meaning "anointed one". Tacitus did not only write about Jesus as a man, but as "Christ".

As for the records, this is Roman history. A Roman historian did what any historian does, he examines the evidence and documents. A man like Jesus who was tried by Pilate and condemned under Roman law had to have been documented by them.

As for the faith issue, thats your problem

[arbutwhoo]

@Zwemer100 So, in fact, there is no hard, reliable evidence; you reach your conclusions via a questionable line of reasoning.

I don't know if you are trying to make the point that Tacitus' use of the word “Christ” means that he was of the opinion that he was writing about a deity. He could, just as easily, have been using the word for the purpose of identification.

Thanks for your answers.

[Zwemer100]

@arbutwhoo Same as you with your evolution theories. Its made up of conclusions based upon evidences. These conclusions cause you to 'think' the entire human race came from fish and frogs? and that an earth was made from a matter which you have no idea where it came from? Yet why do you have no problem with that?

"You strain at a knat and yet you swallow a camel" Matthew 23: 24

[arbutwhoo]

@Zwemer100 I find the evidence for evolution overwhelming & it becomes more so as scientific discovery increases. I found your argument implausible; you've been generous enough to answer my questions but I remain unconvinced. I've found religious study unconvincing ever since attending a C of E infant school.

The validity of scientific method can be demonstrated but theology does not strike me as being a robust field of study. It seems, IMHO, to begin with conclusions & mould the facts to fit.

[Zwemer100]

@arbutwhoo The theory of evolution is not a fact, it is only claimed to be a fact by certain scientists. It is highly speculative and theoretical. It uses facts to suit theory and not theory to suite fact.

I have no problem with fossils, ancient extinct creatures and the remains of deformed beings or variant species which are now extinct, they are not evidence for evolution but extinct creatures. So please don't try and tell me that our ancestors were fish or I'll start to giggle again.

[arbutwhoo]

@Zwemer100 No, you'd be hard pressed to find a (decent) scientist who would claim that it is not a fact. Evolution is observable & there is a huge amount of well documented evidence. You may find more scientist deniers in the future as there is a London university where a large percentage of biology students refuse to take evolution classes because of their belief in the Koran. Just hope that none of them end up as your doctor.

[Zwemer100]

@arbutwhoo Sure, I am aware of the situation, but It is clear that facts are used to construct a theory, Just because the remains of creatures, fossils, rocks, etc have been found, that only proves varient creatures, now extinct. Biological and scientific tests have been made on the DNA of humans and animals etc and they share, thus, prove similar among the species, but not identical. There is no evidence for mutations in increase information of a cell's genome.

[arbutwhoo]

@Zwemer100 The theory has been tested & proved with various methods. Sorry to contradict you but there simply IS evidence that mutations add & subtract information to a genome.

[Zwemer100]

@arbutwhoo Don't wazz down my back and tell me its raining. What case do you have? State your source or referrence or I will ignore your dismissal.

Evolution IS highly theoretical.

[arbutwhoo]

@Zwemer100 A quick google search throws up loads of information. One example that contains relevant links is “talkorigins” followed by dot org; look for Claim CB102. If you can't find it I'll try to post the URL in a way that YT will not disguise.

[Zwemer100]

@arbutwhoo Right. I've started looking into that claim you have made for Claim CB102, thanks.

But what does this have to do with Tacitus or the historical Jesus?

[arbutwhoo]

@Zwemer100 That's a very good question. I'm simply replying to your own questions, so when you've worked out what you wish to know, or what you actually know, I'd be happy to hear from you.

[wraith168]

@Zwemer100 As arbutwhoo said that is a very good question. I would ask why you brought up evolution in the first place when it had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Was it a way to take focus off the arguments that weren't so strong maybe? As for the "your evolution" part in the first place, atheist has nothing to do with evolution. Atheist is simply a stance on one articular assertion. It is the rejection of the idea of any god.

[wraith168]

@Zwemer100 cont... That is all. Now do most atheist think that evolution is true, sure. That has nothing to do with being an atheist though. There are theists that go with evolution. Now as for your claims on the writings of Tacitus, there is a lot of debate on whether or not it is credible. This little space isn't enough to say to much. Let's just say it is highly suspect and not the most reliable evidence.

[Zwemer100]

@wraith168 Read DR Gary Habermas and you will find you have no idea what you are talking about.

[wraith168]

@Zwemer100 Ok I take it you give him as a back up to the writings of Tacitus. So an evangelical Christian apologist and philosopher of religion finds passage in the writings Tacitus to be totally credible and reliable? Go figure. So it is your position that there is no debate over the fact that there is a lot of debate over its credibility?

[Zwemer100]

@wraith168 Dr Gary Habermas was an atheist,then he studied the historical evidence for Christ,then he became a christian.His scholarship is world class. The scholars you read have agendas. Your scholarship will be out of date in 10 years time. It is also full of philosophical presuppositions hardly objective scholarship. That is called checkmate.

[Inclousid]

@Zwemer100 In an age where knowledge is readily available, why do people like you continue to lie, thinking that no one can refute what you say? Habermas was never an atheist. You are either deliberatly interpolating his interviews with Anthony Flew (who actually was an atheist who became a theist) or simply ignorant of the facts. Flew, by the way, did not believe in the Christian god. So even his transformation does not support you. Talk about agendas.

[Lombrette1657]

Did the Romans do a manhunt when they found out Jesus was no longer in his tomb?

[Zwemer100]

@Lombrette1657 Don't try and sidetrack, militant, I will speak on the resurrection later, I am talking here about the fact that there is a historical none-Christian writing which states that Jesus lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem.

Fact