Beware the "historical Jesus" apologetic.

[Unknown Soldier]

One of the most important doctrines of Christianity is that Jesus was a real Jewish man who was born in Israel, preached in Galilee, and was crucified in Jerusalem. We are told that almost all New Testament scholars believe that there was a "historical Jesus" who fits this profile. Most apologists jump on this consensus viewpoint whenever the historicity of Jesus is said to be in doubt. "We have some mainstream scholarship on our side!"

But for the most part we really don't have mainstream scholarship on our side as far as their models of the historical Jesus are concerned. The models these scholars have come up with differ from the Jesus of faith in some very important ways. For example, scholars Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and Maurice Casey, all three atheists, present us with a Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher who was crucified, died, and...that's it! They insist that the supernatural nature of Jesus including his resurrection and his miracles are ahistorical. If Casey, Crossan and Ehrman are right on this issue, then the "real" Jesus never died for our sins and is now dead for almost two thousand years. To embrace this scholarship and its model of Jesus is to deny some of the most fundamental doctrines of our theology.

A closely related difficulty with this scholarship and something used by many apologists to substantiate a historical Jesus is the testimony of the Roman historian Tacitus who tells us:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Are we to use this kind of evidence for a historical Jesus? If we do, then we admit evidence that the earliest Christians were "hated for their abominations"! I think it's best for us to reject this testimony unless we wish to admit that our faith is "a most mischievous superstition."

So let's take care to defend the real Jesus!

 

[Slyzr]

One of the most important doctrines of Christianity is that Jesus was a real Jewish man who was born in Israel, preached in Galilee, and was crucified in Jerusalem. We are told that almost all New Testament scholars believe that there was a "historical Jesus" who fits this profile. Most apologists jump on this consensus viewpoint whenever the historicity of Jesus is said to be in doubt. "We have some mainstream scholarship on our side!"

But for the most part we really don't have mainstream scholarship on our side as far as their models of the historical Jesus are concerned. The models these scholars have come up with differ from the Jesus of faith in some very important ways. For example, scholars Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and Maurice Casey, all three atheists, present us with a Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher who was crucified, died, and...that's it! They insist that the supernatural nature of Jesus including his resurrection and his miracles are ahistorical. If Casey, Crossan and Ehrman are right on this issue, then the "real" Jesus never died for our sins and is now dead for almost two thousand years. To embrace this scholarship and its model of Jesus is to deny some of the most fundamental doctrines of our theology.

A closely related difficulty with this scholarship and something used by many apologists to substantiate a historical Jesus is the testimony of the Roman historian Tacitus who tells us:



Are we to use this kind of evidence for a historical Jesus? If we do, then we admit evidence that the earliest Christians were "hated for their abominations"! I think it's best for us to reject this testimony unless we wish to admit that our faith is "a most mischievous superstition."

So let's take care to defend the real Jesus!

The Jew's were already in a apoplitic stage, when Jesus showed up.

The good news of the kingdom was for a continuance.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The Jew's were already in a apoplitic stage, when Jesus showed up.

Yes, that's what scholars tell us about Israel in the early first century. What's your point? My point is that referring to Jesus as an "apocalyptic prophet" is was too inadequate to describe the Son of God. The term seems to imply that Jesus was just one of many Jewish loser-preachers who got themselves executed by the Romans. Unless you're satisfied with such a view of Jesus, then I suggest you look elsewhere for the historicity of Jesus.

The good news of the kingdom was for a continuance.

You lost me here. What do you mean by "continuance"?

 

[shnarkle]

One of the most important doctrines of Christianity is that Jesus was a real Jewish man who was born in Israel, preached in Galilee, and was crucified in Jerusalem. We are told that almost all New Testament scholars believe that there was a "historical Jesus" who fits this profile.

If we look to the biblical narratives themselves, we see that the personage of Jesus reveals that it is not history, but "the truth" that sets one free. It's bewildering that almost all of Christianity cannot resist the pull of history to justify their beliefs rather than what the core tenets of the faith reveal.

we really don't have mainstream scholarship on our side as far as their models of the historical Jesus are concerned. The models these scholars have come up with differ from the Jesus of faith in some very important ways. For example, scholars Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and Maurice Casey, all three atheists, present us with a Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher who was crucified, died, and...that's it! They insist that the supernatural nature of Jesus including his resurrection and his miracles are ahistorical. If Casey, Crossan and Ehrman are right on this issue, then the "real" Jesus never died for our sins and is now dead for almost two thousand years. To embrace this scholarship and its model of Jesus is to deny some of the most fundamental doctrines of our theology.

The most cutting edge scholarship of the last 100 years indicates that the gospels are liturgical rather than historical narratives. A number of seminaries are even teaching this because it has become somewhat mainstream among scholars and theologians alike. The proof is in how incredibly close the narratives follow the Jewish feast days like a hand into a glove.

Nevertheless, these revelations have yet to filter down into mainstream congregations. They are still only rarely being presented to the most progressive of church congregations.

A closely related difficulty with this scholarship and something used by many apologists to substantiate a historical Jesus is the testimony of the Roman historian Tacitus who tells us:



Are we to use this kind of evidence for a historical Jesus? If we do, then we admit evidence that the earliest Christians were "hated for their abominations"!

He doesn't exactly go into any real details as to what he means by these so-called "abominations". Worshipping any god other than that of the state as well as luring others away from the state gods would probably fall under that category.

I think it's best for us to reject this testimony unless we wish to admit that our faith is "a most mischievous superstition."

Fallacy of the Non-Sequitur, and see above.

So let's take care to defend the real Jesus!

Perhaps you might want to articulate just what you mean by "the real Jesus".

 

[Slyzr]

Yes, that's what scholars tell us about Israel in the early first century. What's your point? My point is that referring to Jesus as an "apocalyptic prophet" is was too inadequate to describe the Son of God. The term seems to imply that Jesus was just one of many Jewish loser-preachers who got themselves executed by the Romans. Unless you're satisfied with such a view of Jesus, then I suggest you look elsewhere for the historicity of Jesus.

You lost me here. What do you mean by "continuance"?

Contuinuance as in the Jew's continue, even through the apoplitic stage.

Look ..... not a biblical historian.

But Jesus said he came for the lost sheep of Israel.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If we look to the biblical narratives themselves, we see that the personage of Jesus reveals that it is not history, but "the truth" that sets one free. It's bewildering that almost all of Christianity cannot resist the pull of history to justify their beliefs rather than what the core tenets of the faith reveal.

I think that's a false dichotomy. The study of history is, at least in theory, the truth about the past. To know that Jesus lived as a man on earth, is an important part of the truth that sets us free. We read in the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

So the historicity of Jesus is a fundamental Christian doctrine.

The most cutting edge scholarship of the last 100 years indicates that the gospels are liturgical rather than historical narratives. A number of seminaries are even teaching this because it has become somewhat mainstream among scholars and theologians alike. The proof is in how incredibly close the narratives follow the Jewish feast days like a hand into a glove.

If the Gospels are merely liturgical, then why laud them for describing the Jewish feast days accurately?

Nevertheless, these revelations have yet to filter down into mainstream congregations. They are still only rarely being presented to the most progressive of church congregations.

From what I've seen of the church, the "people are destroyed for a lack knowledge." We need to educate ourselves regarding the latest scholarship on the New Testament.

He doesn't exactly go into any real details as to what he means by these so-called "abominations". Worshipping any god other than that of the state as well as luring others away from the state gods would probably fall under that category.

You may have neglected to notice in the testimony of Tacitus that "an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." So Tacitus saw Christians as having hatred for mankind, an abomination if true.

Fallacy of the Non-Sequitur, and see above.

As far as I'm concerned, it's inconsistent to point to the words of Tacitus as evidence for a historical Jesus and then ignore whatever else he said that we don't believe! If we do so, then we are special pleading believing what we want to believe and disbelieving what doesn't suit us in the very same source. We can't have it both ways.

Perhaps you might want to articulate just what you mean by "the real Jesus".

The real Jesus is the Son of God and savior of all those who follow him.

 

[shnarkle]

I think that's a false dichotomy. The study of history is, at least in theory, the truth about the past.

It's certainly one person's account or perception of the past. Have you ever read the history of WWII from the perspective of Japanese or German historians? How about Herodotus? He's notorious for twisting history.

To know that Jesus lived as a man on earth, is an important part of the truth that sets us free. We read in the Apostles' Creed:

You're quoting theology, not history. You're literally quoting from a religious creed. While it may be a historical document, it certainly isn't presenting anything historical. God doesn't appear anywhere in history.

So the historicity of Jesus is a fundamental Christian doctrine.

Perhaps, but again Jesus doesn't see history as fundamental to being set free. The truth is far more fundamental than mere historical accounts. Jesus doesn't claim that he is the way, the truth and the life of history. Likewise, the history of the way, the truth and the life are not fundamental, but explicitly derived from what is fundamental.

If the Gospels are merely liturgical, then why laud them for describing the Jewish feast days accurately?

They aren't describing the Feast days. They're an integral feature of the church's influence and contribution to the liturgy. I'm not praising them because they fit so accurately into Jewish feasts. I'm simply pointing out that the fact that they fit so accurately demolishes the claims that they're historical narratives.

One of the claims often presented is that there's no way someone could have remembered all of this so it can't be historical. There's something to this, but there's something even more bizarre when one notices the pervasive use of chiasmas throughout the bible. Historical events do not occur this way. Click on the link below, then scroll to the bottom where it says "the eight signs". The chiasma follows a mirror like format e.g. A,B,C,D, D,C,B,A Note also that each and every significant event or theme is repeated. Thus, the person committing this to memory only really has to remember half of the chiasma to remember the other half as well.

The Eight Signs in John's Gospel. - Appendix to the Companion Bible

levendwater.org

From what I've seen of the church, the "people are destroyed for a lack knowledge." We need to educate ourselves regarding the latest scholarship on the New Testament.

Agreed.

You may have neglected to notice in the testimony of Tacitus that "an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." So Tacitus saw Christians as having hatred for mankind, an abomination if true.

It all depends on what he meant by hating mankind. A Christian might make the same claims of those who reject Christianity. I didn't catch the meaning of "firing the city" either. My recollection is that they got the inhabitants of the city riled up, but this isn't an abomination at all. In fact, the same can be said for Christ getting the inhabitants of Jerusalem in an uproar as well. Some people are easily offended though which isn't the fault of those who are saving abandoned babies, feeding and clothing the poor etc. These things were seen as a problem for the status quo.

As far as I'm concerned, it's inconsistent to point to the words of Tacitus as evidence for a historical Jesus and then ignore whatever else he said that we don't believe!

You're still not looking at the fact that we don't actually know what Tacitus means by "abomination". One man's abomination is another man's spiritual gift.

If we do so, then we are special pleading believing what we want to believe and disbelieving what doesn't suit us in the very same source. We can't have it both ways.

Actually, we can. We can see that there's historical evidence of someone, and also reject the historian's personal opinions of that historical personage.

The bible depicts God leading the charge and winning the battle for the children of Israel while Herodotus claims that the battle was lost because the rats ate their quivers. Rats don't normally do things like that. Regardless, they both agree who was in the battle, where it took place, and who won the battle.

Again, some might accept the fact that Japanese historians are accurate in their references to dates, times, certain events, but it doesn't then follow that we have to agree with their personal opinions concerning who was to blame for staring the war in the first place. Historians in the US will almost all claim that Japan drew the US into the war while Japanese historians will point to the sanctions the US had implemented against Japan which forced them to attack. The sanctions were an act of war. etc. etc.

The real Jesus is the Son of God and savior of all those who follow him.

And for you, that's the theological Jesus rather than the historical one.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It's certainly one person's account or perception of the past. Have you ever read the history of WWII from the perspective of Japanese or German historians?

No.

How about Herodotus?

Not extensively.

He's notorious for twisting history.

If that's true, then obviously somebody knows what "untwisted" history is. You can't know if some report is wrong unless you know what "really happened." Your argument here is self-defeating because in your effort to characterize reported history as lacking credibility you assume that at least some history is credible which is contradictory, of course.

You're quoting theology, not history. You're literally quoting from a religious creed. While it may be a historical document, it certainly isn't presenting anything historical. God doesn't appear anywhere in history.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that the Apostles' Creed informs us about history but that it informs us that the historicity of Jesus is a very important doctrine of Christianity.

Perhaps, but again Jesus doesn't see history as fundamental to being set free. The truth is far more fundamental than mere historical accounts. Jesus doesn't claim that he is the way, the truth and the life of history. Likewise, the history of the way, the truth and the life are not fundamental, but explicitly derived from what is fundamental.

But if the historical accounts in question are accurate, then they are important truths. That's my whole point. I never said that the historicity of Jesus is necessarily the most important truth in Christianity or all the truth, but it is part of truth in the context of Christian theology.

They aren't describing the Feast days. They're an integral feature of the church's influence and contribution to the liturgy. I'm not praising them because they fit so accurately into Jewish feasts. I'm simply pointing out that the fact that they fit so accurately demolishes the claims that they're historical narratives.

I see no reason why a historical narrative cannot become liturgy. I think you have it backwards: the liturgy fits the Gospels rather than the Gospels fit the liturgy that did not yet exist when the Gospels were written.

One of the claims often presented is that there's no way someone could have remembered all of this so it can't be historical. There's something to this, but there's something even more bizarre when one notices the pervasive use of chiasmas throughout the bible. Historical events do not occur this way. Click on the link below, then scroll to the bottom where it says "the eight signs". The chiasma follows a mirror like format e.g. A,B,C,D, D,C,B,A Note also that each and every significant event or theme is repeated. Thus, the person committing this to memory only really has to remember half of the chiasma to remember the other half as well.

Yes, the Gospels have some properties that may call their historicity into question, and that's why we as Christians need an abiding faith in Jesus that can survive tough scrutiny.

The Eight Signs in John's Gospel. - Appendix to the Companion Bible

levendwater.org

No thank you. Generally I prefer that whomever I'm dialoguing with use their own words to describe their position on the issue.

It all depends on what he meant by hating mankind.

Hating means to have a strong dislike for.

You're still not looking at the fact that we don't actually know what Tacitus means by "abomination". One man's abomination is another man's spiritual gift.

It's not hard to understand what an abomination is. I've always understood it to mean a terrible act or consequence.

Actually, we can. We can see that there's historical evidence of someone, and also reject the historian's personal opinions of that historical personage.

I was referring to what Tacitus said about the Christians of his day. He accused them of committing terrible acts including having hatred for people. The critics of Christianity in Tacitus's day also accused Christians of cannibalism and incest, criticisms he surely was aware of. So Tacitus is no more merely expressing an opinion about Christians than you or I would be merely expressing an opinion when we testify in court that the defendant broke the law. When accusations are made they are statements of alleged fact rather than opinion. So if Tacitus was objectively reporting history regarding Jesus, then he was reporting the abominable acts of the Christians of his day too. To accept the former and to deny the latter is special pleading.

The bible depicts God leading the charge and winning the battle for the children of Israel while Herodotus claims that the battle was lost because the rats ate their quivers. Rats don't normally do things like that. Regardless, they both agree who was in the battle, where it took place, and who won the battle.

Unlike rats allegedly eating quivers which we have reason to doubt, we cannot say we have such doubt regarding Christians hating humankind. If you've seen the Westboro Baptist Church's rants against gays, then it isn't hard to see Christians as possibly hating people.

Again, some might accept the fact that Japanese historians are accurate in their references to dates, times, certain events, but it doesn't then follow that we have to agree with their personal opinions concerning who was to blame for staring the war in the first place. Historians in the US will almost all claim that Japan drew the US into the war while Japanese historians will point to the sanctions the US had implemented against Japan which forced them to attack. The sanctions were an act of war. etc. etc.

History has its problems, to be sure. Personally, I don't believe that Tacitus was right about the Christians of his day committing terrible acts. To be consistent, though, I won't arbitrarily shift gears believing his testimony about Jesus being a real guy.

And for you, that's the theological Jesus rather than the historical one.

No, to me Jesus can be and is both theological and historical. You appear to arguing a false dichotomy here; being God and being a real person are not mutually exclusive.

 

[shnarkle]

If that's true, then obviously somebody knows what "untwisted" history is.

I'm not suggesting that anyone has an accurate account of these historical events. I'm simply pointing out that one of the most well-known historians of ancient history had a reputation for fabricating historical events. Those making these claims could be just as wrong as he was. The point is that, unlike some religious denominations, historians do not normally make any claims to infallibility.

You can't know if some report is wrong unless you know what "really happened."

Correct, and yet what one knows can never validate the truth. The truth cannot be validated by what is necessarily derivative. The truth is always and everywhere fundamental.

Your argument here is self-defeating because in your effort to characterize reported history as lacking credibility you assume that at least some history is credible which is contradictory, of course.

Of course, which is why I'm not making that claim. I'm pointing out that history is inherently flawed as a source for the truth. In other words, one does not establish the truth through looking at history. The truth cannot be validated by secondary or derivative means.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that the Apostles' Creed informs us about history but that it informs us that the historicity of Jesus is a very important doctrine of Christianity.

A distinction with no effective difference. The Apostles' Creed informs us that the theology of Jesus is a very important doctrine of Christianity. Other than the document itself, there is nothing contained within the Apostles' Creed that a historian would view as historical.

But if the historical accounts in question are accurate, then they are important truths. That's my whole point.

I haven't forgotten your whole point. I'm simply pointing out that it's backwards. There is nothing more fundamental than the truth which is why Christ is the truth rather than just someone who is believed to have existed because of historical accounts.

I never said that the historicity of Jesus is necessarily the most important truth in Christianity or all the truth, but it is part of truth in the context of Christian theology.

I've already addressed this, so I won't belabor a point that you feel no need to refute.

I see no reason why a historical narrative cannot become liturgy.

I don't either, except when all historical evidence points to the fact that it can't be. Note that I'm using your criteria here.

I think you have it backwards: the liturgy fits the Gospels rather than the Gospels fit the liturgy that did not yet exist when the Gospels were written.

You might want to look at what you just wrote again, or perhaps you really don't understand what I'm posting at all. The liturgy existed before Jesus Christ walked the earth. His parents were observant Jews who participated in that same liturgy. The gospel narratives (not to be confused or conflated with "the Everlasting Gospel") became an integral part of the liturgy as well as a source of conflict among those who didn't see Jesus as the Messiah. Eventually, there was a schism between the traditional view and this newest sect of Judaism. The latter then found it necessary to commit these liturgical additions to writing. To this day, they can still be seen in the Catholic liturgy which follows John's gospel narrative. John's gospel followed a three-year cycle which is still what is used in all Catholic liturgies.

As the church became more of a gentile phenomenon, their ignorance of the relationship of these narratives to the liturgy faded away, and it was just assumed that these were historical narratives. This isn't to say that Jesus never existed, or that nothing contained in them ever happened, but to point out that the underlying relationship was a liturgical one, and the parallels are too blatant to be ignored for anyone who has bothered to look at the Jewish liturgical calendar.

Yes, the Gospels have some properties that may call their historicity into question, and that's why we as Christians need an abiding faith in Jesus that can survive tough scrutiny.

Look at what you just posted and note how contradictory it is to what you just claimed earlier, e.g. " I never said that the historicity of Jesus is necessarily the most important truth in Christianity or all the truth, but it is part of truth in the context of Christian theology."

For those who follow Christ's teachings, the historicity isn't what sets you free to begin with due to the fact that histories are what is recollected after the fact, whereas the truth is always and everywhere fundamental. In other words, one needn't view this as a threat to their faith. Scrutiny reveals the truth, and the fact that the historicity of Jesus is of no real consequence.
to be continued...

 

[shnarkle]

No thank you. Generally I prefer that whomever I'm dialoguing with use their own words to describe their position on the issue.

I didn't come up with this myself. I did use my own words, I then provided you with hard cold irrefutable evidence which you've decided to ignore. You've conceded the point. Nuff said.

Hating means to have a strong dislike for.

It doesn't tell us why. He gives us nothing more than vague claims.

It's not hard to understand what an abomination is. I've always understood it to mean a terrible act or consequence.

You're personal understanding is of little consequence. The bible presents us with a number of examples including, eating swine or shellfish, wearing clothing with mixed fibers, sodomy, etc. etc. There are quite a few Christians and pagans alike who see nothing in these acts that warrants describing them as terrible acts, detestable, or resulting in detrimental consequences. See the problem yet?

I was referring to what Tacitus said about the Christians of his day. He accused them of committing terrible acts

Yes, we got that already. We're still trying to discover just exactly what these terrible acts were precisely. They aren't articulated.

including having hatred for people.

The vague accusation doesn't make it a fact. it's a vague accusation.

The critics of Christianity in Tacitus's day also accused Christians of cannibalism and incest,

Probably stemming from ignorance of their terminology, e.g. "Take and eat. This is my body" etc.

Tacitus is no more merely expressing an opinion about Christians than you or I would be merely expressing an opinion when we testify in court that the defendant broke the law.

Actually, it's not only just an opinion, but it's inadmissible as evidence due to it being considered hearsay.

When accusations are made they are statements of alleged fact rather than opinion.

False. See above, and note that historically, defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Accusations are not considered proof in a court of law.

So if Tacitus was objectively reporting history regarding Jesus, then he was reporting the abominable acts of the Christians of his day too.

Which he never articulates beyond vague and ambiguous claims.

To accept the former and to deny the latter is special pleading.

Correct which is why history isn't a fundamental tenet or feature of the gospel message.

Unlike rats allegedly eating quivers which we have reason to doubt, we cannot say we have such doubt regarding Christians hating humankind.

We can have just as much doubt if not more. This is especially the case when we consider that new religions are necessarily going to be threat to the status quo. When we're dealing with a state religion, this is going to be all the more prevalent.

If you've seen the Westboro Baptist Church's rants against gays, then it isn't hard to see Christians as possibly hating people.

You're making my points for me now. Using your logic, this must necessarily be the case with you regardless of whether you're a Chrisitan or not.

History has its problems, to be sure. Personally, I don't believe that Tacitus was right about the Christians of his day committing terrible acts.

Then you've just denied your own argument with just as much evidence to support this belief as well.

To be consistent, though, I won't arbitrarily shift gears believing his testimony about Jesus being a real guy.

Again, you're tearing down your own arguments better than I am.

No, to me Jesus can be and is both theological and historical.

Strawman argument. I've never claimed they were mutually exclusive propositions. I'm simply pointing out where one needs to place their priorities.

You appear to arguing a false dichotomy here; being God and being a real person are not mutually exclusive.

You seem to be hallucinating arguments I'm not presenting to begin with.

 

[Gary Mac]

One of the most important doctrines of Christianity is that Jesus was a real Jewish man who was born in Israel, preached in Galilee, and was crucified in Jerusalem. We are told that almost all New Testament scholars believe that there was a "historical Jesus" who fits this profile. Most apologists jump on this consensus viewpoint whenever the historicity of Jesus is said to be in doubt. "We have some mainstream scholarship on our side!"

But for the most part we really don't have mainstream scholarship on our side as far as their models of the historical Jesus are concerned. The models these scholars have come up with differ from the Jesus of faith in some very important ways. For example, scholars Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and Maurice Casey, all three atheists, present us with a Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher who was crucified, died, and...that's it! They insist that the supernatural nature of Jesus including his resurrection and his miracles are ahistorical. If Casey, Crossan and Ehrman are right on this issue, then the "real" Jesus never died for our sins and is now dead for almost two thousand years. To embrace this scholarship and its model of Jesus is to deny some of the most fundamental doctrines of our theology.

A closely related difficulty with this scholarship and something used by many apologists to substantiate a historical Jesus is the testimony of the Roman historian Tacitus who tells us:



Are we to use this kind of evidence for a historical Jesus? If we do, then we admit evidence that the earliest Christians were "hated for their abominations"! I think it's best for us to reject this testimony unless we wish to admit that our faith is "a most mischievous superstition."

So let's take care to defend the real Jesus!

Romans kept very good historical events and in their archives there is only on small mention of a man named Jesus. If Jesus had made such the uproar in Rome that is said of him in the Bible looks to me they would have documented it.

To me the most important doctrine for Christianity is Matt 3:16. This is how one becomes Christian by receiving the very thing from God that Jesus did. You are not going to know God nor His heaven until you do.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm not suggesting that anyone has an accurate account of these historical events. I'm simply pointing out that one of the most well-known historians of ancient history had a reputation for fabricating historical events. Those making these claims could be just as wrong as he was. The point is that, unlike some religious denominations, historians do not normally make any claims to infallibility.

Historians need not be infallible to be informative, and in some cases we can be reasonably sure that they are right.

Correct, and yet what one knows can never validate the truth.

Yes, I suppose that's true assuming that other people deem my truth claims, even if correct, to lack credibility. What I know to be true does not necessarily demonstrate that truth.

The truth cannot be validated by what is necessarily derivative. The truth is always and everywhere fundamental.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "derivative" and "fundamental."

Of course, which is why I'm not making that claim.

It sure looked that way to me! Why bring up Tacitus misinforming people to say we cannot rely on historians only to rely on historians to judge Tacitus that way?

I'm pointing out that history is inherently flawed as a source for the truth. In other words, one does not establish the truth through looking at history.

Truth can be established by examining history if the evidence is sufficient. Do you think that the truth of Kennedy being assassinated is not established by historical studies? You appear to think so.

The truth cannot be validated by secondary or derivative means.

I still don't know what this means.

A distinction with no effective difference. The Apostles' Creed informs us that the theology of Jesus is a very important doctrine of Christianity. Other than the document itself, there is nothing contained within the Apostles' Creed that a historian would view as historical.

Again, you're missing the fact that according to the Apostles' Creed the historicity of Jesus is a very important doctrine too. Theology can be and often is based on history. In other words, God often acts at different times (history) to let us know something about Him (theology). We see examples throughout the Bible of this principle. A major portion of the Apostles' Creed is also doing just that; it uses history to establish theology. For example, it mentions the crucifixion (a historical event) to establish that we can be forgiven our sins (theology).

I haven't forgotten your whole point. I'm simply pointing out that it's backwards. There is nothing more fundamental than the truth which is why Christ is the truth rather than just someone who is believed to have existed because of historical accounts.

Please define "fundamental."

I don't either, except when all historical evidence points to the fact that it can't be. Note that I'm using your criteria here.

Can you post an example of a historical story that cannot become liturgy? It seems to me that anything, true or false, can become liturgy.

And please don't deny what you said about historical narrative not able to become liturgy:

Unknown Soldier: "I see no reason why a historical narrative cannot become liturgy."
Schnarkle: I don't either, except when all historical evidence points to the fact that it can't be.

You might want to look at what you just wrote again, or perhaps you really don't understand what I'm posting at all.

Whose fault is that when you don't define your terms?

The liturgy existed before Jesus Christ walked the earth.

OK. I thought you were referring to Christian liturgy.

As the church became more of a gentile phenomenon, their ignorance of the relationship of these narratives to the liturgy faded away, and it was just assumed that these were historical narratives. This isn't to say that Jesus never existed, or that nothing contained in them ever happened, but to point out that the underlying relationship was a liturgical one, and the parallels are too blatant to be ignored for anyone who has bothered to look at the Jewish liturgical calendar.

Oh sure--the Gospels do appear to be influenced by non-historical factors. We have such stories about Socrates and Alexander the Great too. While Jewish liturgical motifs in the Gospels cast some doubt on the historicity of the Gospels, I don't think that that evidence is sufficient to allow us to reasonably conclude that the Gospels are not, broadly speaking, historical. I could write stories about you that may reflect liturgy of some kind, but my doing so doesn't necessarily mean what I'm writing is not historical. For example, I could say that your activities in this forum are part of God's plan to reveal His will to all who read your posts. My adding God into the mix doesn't make your posting here any less historical.

Look at what you just posted and note how contradictory it is to what you just claimed earlier, e.g. " I never said that the historicity of Jesus is necessarily the most important truth in Christianity or all the truth, but it is part of truth in the context of Christian theology."

Let's take a look! I'll use side-by-side comparison:

Earlier: "I never said that the historicity of Jesus is necessarily the most important truth in Christianity or all the truth, but it is part of truth in the context of Christian theology."
Now: "Yes, the Gospels have some properties that may call their historicity into question, and that's why we as Christians need an abiding faith in Jesus that can survive tough scrutiny."

I'm not sure where I contradicted myself. Let's try condensing the two statements:

Earlier: "...the historicity of Jesus is...part of truth in the context of Christian theology."
Now: "...the Gospels have some properties that may call their historicity into question, and that's why we as Christians need an abiding faith in Jesus that can survive tough scrutiny."

Again, I don't see any contradictions there. Both statements are true as far as I can tell, so they cannot be contradictory.

For those who follow Christ's teachings, the historicity isn't what sets you free to begin with due to the fact that histories are what is recollected after the fact, whereas the truth is always and everywhere fundamental. In other words, one needn't view this as a threat to their faith. Scrutiny reveals the truth, and the fact that the historicity of Jesus is of no real consequence.

The historicity of Christ is necessary to be set free from the effects of sin, but that historicity is not sufficient to be set free from sin. In other words, we needed Christ to come to us in space and time to set us free from sin (a mythical Christ cannot set anybody free of sin), but His merely existing alongside of us by itself cannot and did not set us free from sin. His crucifixion, a factor enabled by His historicity, set us free from sin.

Think of it like this: two wheels are necessary to make a bicycle ridable, but you can't ride two wheels! Two wheels don't suffice to make up a ridable contraption--you need more parts like a frame, peddles, a seat, a chain and handlebars.

 

[shnarkle]

Historians need not be infallible to be informative,

As I pointed out before, there are plenty of examples that refute that claim. Even though Herodotus is notorious for his ability to stretch and twist these histories, they are still nonetheless quite informative. Even false information is still information.

and in some cases we can be reasonably sure that they are right.

Right about history or right about theology? While they may not necessarily be mutually exclusive propositions, theology cannot be dependent upon history due to the fact that God does not exist within the context of history, at least not the biblical god.

Yes, I suppose that's true assuming that other people deem my truth claims, even if correct, to lack credibility. What I know to be true does not necessarily demonstrate that truth.

Agreed.

I'm not sure what you mean here by "derivative" and "fundamental."

I'm not redefining words. There is nothing more fundamental than reality. Whatever one may observe, recognize or consider can only be processed after the fact. The intellect is not fundamental. You look at a man hanging on a cross, and you may think all sorts of things about what you're witnessing, but everything you think is secondary to what you're witnessing. It is effectively a simulation with added thoughts, emotions, etc. None of this is real. Ultimately, none of it is factual, or historical regardless of how many people may agree to each and every fact. As your own bible clearly points out, the whole world is deceived. It all began in the garden when the very image of God thought of himself as deficient. Instead of the fundamental or immediate connection he had with God, he sought something which is inherently derivative or secondary, i.e. an intellectual understanding. The problem is that one's understanding can never stand under reality. Reality is fundamental, not one's intellect or understanding of reality. The ontological reality comes before one can come up with an epistemology. Descartes didn't just get it backwards, he assumed the thoughts that magically just appear out of nowhere are his possessions or perhaps even his own creations.

It sure looked that way to me! Why bring up Tacitus misinforming people to say we cannot rely on historians only to rely on historians to judge Tacitus that way?

Strawman argument. Here's what I actually posted:

" I'm not suggesting that anyone has an accurate account of these historical events. I'm simply pointing out that one of the most well-known historians of ancient history had a reputation for fabricating historical events. Those making these claims could be just as wrong as he was. The point is that, unlike some religious denominations, historians do not normally make any claims to infallibility.... I'm pointing out that history is inherently flawed as a source for the truth. In other words, one does not establish the truth through looking at history. The truth cannot be validated by secondary or derivative means."

Truth can be established by examining history if the evidence is sufficient.

It isn't. No one can ever know the truth through secondary methods. What one may know cannot be the truth if it is established through secondary or tertiary methods, means etc. This is why one must seek the truth first, THEN one can know the truth after the fact. One can only know the truth after being set free by the truth. Otherwise, it is knowledge of the truth that sets one free rather than the truth itself. Again, knowledge is secondary and of no consequence. It's for entertainment purposes only.

Do you think that the truth of Kennedy being assassinated is not established by historical studies?

Not even close. I don't know how you can come up with this question given the overwhelming amount of contradictory information that has been presented over the last few decades. People can't even agree where the fatal shot came from, or how many shots were fired, or where the bullets went after that. There are numerous examples of people taking film footage and pointing out someone with a gun in the car carrying the President. The footage is too grainy, but once it's pointed out, it actually looks like the driver just reached around and shot the President. I doubt it, but at this point, anything is possible. There's really no way to tell what happened.

You appear to think so.

It doesn't really matter what we think because historians who have been studying this for the last few decades can't agree on the most basic so-called "facts".

I still don't know what this means.

Epistemologies are not necessary to validate ontological reality.

Again, you're missing the fact that according to the Apostles' Creed the historicity of Jesus is a very important doctrine too.

I'm not missing or forgetting your claim. Repeating it doesn't prove it.

Theology can be and often is based on history. In other words, God...

God is not a historical figure. By definition, the biblical god transcends history. The biblical god sees the end from the beginning.

often acts at different times (history) to let us know something about Him (theology).

You're basically just begging the question here. Where is your historical documentation of the existence of God?

We see examples throughout the Bible of this principle. A major portion of the Apostles' Creed is also doing just that; it uses history to establish theology. For example, it mentions the crucifixion (a historical event) to establish that we can be forgiven our sins (theology).

"The crucifixion" is not a historical event. Historians may claim crucifixion as a means of capital punishment, but they rely upon hearsay from a religious group when they record Christ's crucifixion. They are recording historical claims rather than the veracity of the claims themselves.

Please define "fundamental."

Can you post an example of a historical story that cannot become liturgy?

Strawman argument. I'm pointing out the obverse, i.e. that with regards to the gospels, we're not dealing with historical narratives at all, but liturgical ones.

It seems to me that anything, true or false, can become liturgy.

Sure, but that's completely besides the point. I've gone so far as to present proof positive evidence which you have chosen to completely ignore. So much for any honest desire to seek out or establish the truth.

And please don't deny what you said about historical narrative not able to become liturgy:

Unknown Soldier: "I see no reason why a historical narrative cannot become liturgy."
Schnarkle: I don't either,

Did you catch that?????

except when all historical evidence points to the fact that it can't be.

Note that this statement is with regards to a very specific example, i.e. the gospel narratives.

Whose fault is that when you don't define your terms?

What you're really insinuating here is that I'm redefining my terms. I'm doing no such thing. I'm using the commonly accepted definitions of words.

OK. I thought you were referring to Christian liturgy.

I am. The Christian liturgy that is evident in Catholic and some of the Catholic church's closest denominations is derived from the same liturgy used by the early church which was a Jewish liturgy.

Oh sure--the Gospels do appear to be influenced by non-historical factors.

Factors which you have openly and intentionally chosen to ignore.

I don't think that that evidence is sufficient

Again, you've chosen to ignore the evidence. You've conceded the fact that you would rather just stuff you head into the sand than face the music.

The historicity of Christ is necessary to be set free from the effects of sin,

Not really. Nowhere in the gospels or anywhere in the bible is this claim ever made. The only requirement is that one repent and deny themselves. Self denial or self sacrifice are essentially synonymous. The former phrase is illustrated by the latter. The former begins the teaching while the latter illustrates the teaching.

but that historicity is not sufficient to be set free from sin. In other words, we needed

You're already living in the past, but the gospel cannot exist in the past. The gospel makes all things new again. See the problem yet?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Again, you've chosen to ignore the evidence. You've conceded the fact that you would rather just stuff you head into the sand than face the music.

More snarky comments like that, and you'll be debating somebody else assuming they can stomach your abuse.

Nowhere in the gospels or anywhere in the bible is this claim ever made.

Wrong! We read in Matthew 26:27-29:

Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Got that? Jesus came to earth that we can have our sins forgiven. That's what I said, that's what I just proved, and that's what you denied.

 

[shnarkle]

More snarky comments like that, and you'll be debating somebody else assuming they can stomach your abuse.

When evidence is provided, and immediately ignored with some arbitrary stipulation that one must first transcribe it in its entirety into one's own words, it becomes quite clear that you have more than enough bile to handle a simple observation.

Wrong! We read in Matthew 26:27-29:


Got that? Jesus came to earth that we can have our sins forgiven.

And yet you're still ignoring the context which depicts a Passover meal which was presented during Passover yet offers new meaning.

That's what I said,

False. You claimed a historical personage is necessary for this liturgical narrative to be valid.

that's what I just proved,

False. See above.

and that's what you denied.

Correct. I also refuted it with evidence which you continue to ignore. To ignore the clear evidence is to concede the argument.

 

[CrowCross]

Are we to use this kind of evidence for a historical Jesus?

Why not use the Bible?

 

[En Hakkore]

One of the most important doctrines of Christianity is that Jesus was a real Jewish man who was born in Israel, preached in Galilee, and was crucified in Jerusalem.

Last I checked, you don't believe any of that, having unmasked yourself in a thread on this topic last year as a Jesus mythicist by critiquing your own feigned support of "historical Jesus" (your scare quotes, not mine) scholarship beginning here --- you quickly ran away from my criticisms specific to your deficient understanding of the criterion of embarrassment posted here claiming them "way too verbose". Your engagement with historical Jesus scholarship hasn't much improved since last year and your latest post seems little more than yet another game of playing devil's advocate, which is a charitable evaluation of your modus operandi.

We are told that almost all New Testament scholars believe that there was a "historical Jesus" who fits this profile. Most apologists jump on this consensus viewpoint whenever the historicity of Jesus is said to be in doubt. "We have some mainstream scholarship on our side!"

But for the most part we really don't have mainstream scholarship on our side as far as their models of the historical Jesus are concerned. The models these scholars have come up with differ from the Jesus of faith in some very important ways. For example, scholars Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and Maurice Casey, all three atheists, present us with a Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher who was crucified, died, and...that's it!

Casey became irreligious early on in his academic career, which is not synonymous with atheism... feel free to document your stronger claim as I would be interested to see if that's the case (pun intended?) --- for now, I'm far more interested in your humorous characterization of Crossan as an atheist and that his reconstruction of the historical Jesus is one of an apocalyptic preacher. Here is what Crossan has to say about Jesus' relationship to apocalypticism (bold and underlined emphases mine):

I have argued that John the Baptist was an apocalyptic prophet preparing his followers for the imminent advent of God as the Coming One but that Jesus, after having originally accepted that vision, eventually changed his response some time after the execution of John. He then emphatically contrasted a follower of John and a member of the Kingdom. He never spoke of himself or anyone else as the apocalyptic Son of Man, and a tentative hypothesis for the break between John and Jesus is that the latter no longer accepted the former's apocalyptic message.
John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (HarperOne, 1992), p. 259

As for your claim that Crossan is an atheist... that's news to me and I would again invite you to document that --- to the best of my knowledge he still identifies as a Christian and specifically as a Roman Catholic, however "heretical" his views of Jesus are within that tradition.

While you correctly identify Ehrman as both an atheist (though he qualifies that as an "agnostic atheist") and a proponent of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, why does your exploration of historical Jesus scholarship stop there? Do you think your handpicked examples adequately document your insinuation that mainstream scholarship on Jesus is not on the side of Christian faith? Where are the likes of Dale Allison, Ben Witherington III, N.T. Wright, Gerd Theissen, John Meier and Marcus Borg, to name a few, in your analysis? None of these scholars conclude in the end "that's it" --- they are able to forge faith-affirming links between the historical Jesus and the theological Christ, thereby calling into question any such strict dichotomy as you imply to exist.

They insist that the supernatural nature of Jesus including his resurrection and his miracles are ahistorical. If Casey, Crossan and Ehrman are right on this issue, then the "real" Jesus never died for our sins and is now dead for almost two thousand years. To embrace this scholarship and its model of Jesus is to deny some of the most fundamental doctrines of our theology.

As noted above, you can only reach this conclusion through a very selective review of historical Jesus scholarship... and with respect to your ostensible appropriation of Christian theology as your own, I noted a few weeks ago here that I doubt your alleged recent conversion, which would constitute a complete reversal of the virulently anti-Christian drivel you were spewing out last year on this same forum that I cannot link to because the moderators wiped your threads out. Your subsequent complaint, however, remains public record here and as one responder to the thread astutely observed, your motive was --- and arguably remains --- to de-convert Christians. If that is no longer the case, by all means accept my earlier invitation to briefly share what led to your conversion and to what type of Christianity. That you declined to do so a month ago speaks volumes as to your true intentions here, which I am not alone in detecting.

So let's take care to defend the real Jesus!

Oh please do clarify who you think "the real Jesus" is --- I have every reason to believe you still think that is your pen pal Richard Carrier's mythical Jesus and by warning Christians against the alleged "logical" conclusions of embracing a narrow subsection of atheist (and even that characterization wasn't completely correct) historical Jesus scholarship that lends itself to a strict bifurcation between a first-century Jew and the resurrected Lord, you hope to plant doubts about both.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I didn't come up with this myself. I did use my own words, I then provided you with hard cold irrefutable evidence which you've decided to ignore. You've conceded the point. Nuff said.

Since when is an internet link "hard, cold, irrefutable evidence"? In any event, I now see what your assumptions are based upon.

It doesn't tell us why. He gives us nothing more than vague claims.

Tacitus accusing Christians of hating people isn't vague at all me. I have no trouble understanding what Tacitus meant by that accusation.

You're personal understanding is of little consequence.

My understanding is very relevant to anything you say cannot be understood. All we need is one person who can understand what you say cannot be understood to prove you wrong--and we have that one person (i.e. myself).

The bible presents us with a number of examples including, eating swine or shellfish, wearing clothing with mixed fibers, sodomy, etc. etc. There are quite a few Christians and pagans alike who see nothing in these acts that warrants describing them as terrible acts, detestable, or resulting in detrimental consequences. See the problem yet?

I understand that different people will have different ideas about what a terrible act or circumstance might be. However, those differing viewpoints don't strip the word "abomination" of its meaning. If we are told that Christians committed abominations, then I think it's foolish to shrug it off as merely one person's opinion. Tacitus obviously was trying to warn people about Christians, and we should take his warning into very serious consideration. It is foolish not to.

The vague accusation doesn't make it a fact. it's a vague accusation.

Again, I have no trouble at all understanding Tacitus's accusation even though I don't have the specific details of what those abominations were or in what way Christians supposedly hated people. I think Tacitus was accusing Christians of cannibalism and incest which almost all people see as evil acts.

Probably stemming from ignorance of their terminology, e.g. "Take and eat. This is my body" etc.

True, but what Christians were actually doing is beside the point. We are examining what Tacitus--right or wrong--was accusing Christians of doing. If we deem him right about a historical Christ, then it's logically inconsistent to dismiss what he said about what Christians were doing then.

Actually, it's not only just an opinion, but it's inadmissible as evidence due to it being considered hearsay.

Eyewitness testimony isn't hearsay, and even if it was, that's beside the point. The point I'm making is that accusations should never be dismissed as mere opinion, a fact that any prosecutor or defense attorney knows.

False.

True! You may wish to look up a definition of accusation (spoiler: you won't find it defined as an opinion).

See above, and note that historically, defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Accusations are not considered proof in a court of law.

Accusations can be admitted as evidence in a court of law, of course, and almost always are.

Correct which is why history isn't a fundamental tenet or feature of the gospel message.

What Bible version do you read?

We can have just as much doubt if not more. This is especially the case when we consider that new religions are necessarily going to be threat to the status quo. When we're dealing with a state religion, this is going to be all the more prevalent.

But new religions are often real threats to the cultures they arise in. Think of Jim Jones and David Koresh. History informs us that some Christians were being executed which is obviously a threat to those Christians not to mention their loved ones. So again, to dismiss what Tacitus said about the Christians of his day is foolish indeed.

You're making my points for me now. Using your logic, this must necessarily be the case with you regardless of whether you're a Chrisitan or not.

You lost me here.

Then you've just denied your own argument with just as much evidence to support this belief as well.

No, I never argued that Christians were actually doing what Tacitus accused them of which is an issue of fact. Rather, the actual crux of the matter is that to accept what Tacitus said about Christ existing only to deem him wrong about Christians is an issue of logic.

OK? Do you understand what I'm arguing? I'm not disputing fact, but I am disputing logic.

Again, you're tearing down your own arguments better than I am.

No--I don't think you know what my argument is. I'm just being logically consistent and recognizing a special-pleading fallacy in Christian apologetics regarding the testimony of Tacitus.

Strawman argument.

If you think I posted a strawman argument, then you don't know what a strawman argument is. I posted my own point of view about Jesus being both a historical figure and God which isn't an argument at all much less a strawman argument.

You seem to be hallucinating arguments I'm not presenting to begin with.

Either that or you don't understand what you're posting.

 

[shnarkle]

Since when is an internet link "hard, cold, irrefutable evidence"?

When the content of the link presents hard, cold irrefutable evidence. You would have to actually look at it to see it for yourself, but as you've already admitted you have no intention of looking at any evidence that may tarnish your cherished beliefs.

In any event, I now see what your assumptions are based upon.

Oh, you clicked on the link and actually looked at the evidence? News to me. Tell us all what you think of it now that you've finally decided to get honest with yourself.

Tacitus accusing Christians of hating people isn't vague at all me. I have no trouble understanding what Tacitus meant by that accusation.

Beside the point which is that no one has any specific examples.

My understanding is very relevant to anything you say cannot be understood.

Please try again.

All we need is one person who can understand what you say cannot be understood to prove you wrong

All you need is to proofread your posts and supply the appropriate punctuation to make yourself understood.

I understand that different people will have different ideas about what a terrible act or circumstance might be. However, those differing viewpoints don't strip the word "abomination" of its meaning.

The biblical definition is "detestable", and specific examples are provided for your edification. Now you go and do the same for your historical claims from Tacitus.

If we are told that Christians committed abominations, then I think it's foolish to shrug it off as merely one person's opinion.

Perhaps Tacitus also saw that consuming shellfish or swine or wearing clothing with mixed fibers was an abomination. Were these Christians committing these abominations?

Tacitus obviously was trying to warn people about Christians, and we should take his warning into very serious consideration. It is foolish not to.

Could you give us some specific examples of why these vague warnings from a historian almost 2,000 years ago should be taken seriously today?

Again, I have no trouble at all understanding Tacitus's accusation even though I don't have the specific details of what those abominations were or in what way Christians supposedly hated people.

I don't have any trouble understanding that hatred means hatred either, but given the fact that he doesn't go into any detail on the subject, I don't see any point in getting flustered over the vague claims of someone who has been dead for almost 2000 years.

I think Tacitus was accusing Christians of cannibalism and incest which almost all people see as evil acts.

False. The fact is that cannibals and those who engage in incest obviously don't have a problem with these things at all. Moreover, one need only look at the latest from Hollywood to see that incest and cannibalism are in vogue these days. e.g. August: Osage County, Rumor Has It, etc.

Additionally, the dietary laws were really the only thing prohibiting cannibalism which Christianity today has done away with.

True, but what Christians were actually doing is beside the point.

Why? Why isn't it important to find out what they were actually doing? Doesn't that justify or destroy the accusations?

We are examining what Tacitus--right or wrong--was accusing Christians of doing.

Not according to what you just posted. You just claimed that it doesn't matter what they were doing so how can you examine what you don't care to look at in the first place????

If we deem him right about a historical Christ, then it's logically inconsistent to dismiss what he said about what Christians were doing then.

What were they doing???? You just claimed that it's beside the point to look at what they were actually doing!!!

Eyewitness testimony isn't hearsay,

We're not dealing with eyewitness testimony!!! We're dealing with what Tacitus has written from what he's heard.

and even if it was, that's beside the point.

Not if your argument is to be taken seriously.

The point I'm making is that accusations should never be dismissed as mere opinion, a fact that any prosecutor or defense attorney knows.

No competent prosecutor would ever admit to such an idiotic claim. Prosecutors don't win cases based upon accusations. They win cases (depending upon whether they're prosecuting a civil or criminal case) based upon the evidence presented. Accusations are not evidence. The jury decides based upon the preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. Accusations carry little to no weight whatsoever without evidence to back them up.

True! You may wish to look up a definition of accusation (spoiler: you won't find it defined as an opinion).

You won't find them defined as evidence either. Accusations are what bring people into a courtroom to begin with. Without any evidence to back them up, they are worthless.

 

[shnarkle]

Accusations can be admitted as evidence in a court of law, of course, and almost always are.

Accusations are admitted as testimony, but testimony is not evidence. Evidence is what wins cases, not accusations.

But new religions are often real threats to the cultures they arise in. Think of Jim Jones and David Koresh.

You're joking. Jim Jones and David Koresh were no threat to the surrounding cultures Some governments viewed them as a threat, but the governments were the actual threat. If the government had left them alone, nothing would have happened.

History informs us that some Christians were being executed which is obviously a threat to those Christians not to mention their loved ones.

History informs us that some people were being executed which is obviously a threat to those people not to mention their loved ones. So what? Placing a label on some people and attributing it to anyone else is the fallacy of the Hasty Generalization.

So again, to dismiss what Tacitus said about the Christians of his day is foolish indeed.

Tacitus is dead and so are all those nasty evil Christians so pardon me if I don't lose any sleep over the hearsay jotted down by Tacitus.

You lost me here.

You're making a hasty generalization based upon hearsay.

No, I never argued that Christians were actually doing what Tacitus accused them of which is an issue of fact.

Not according to what you've been posting. You just claimed that it doesn't matter what they were doing.

Rather, the actual crux of the matter is that to accept what Tacitus said about Christ existing only to deem him wrong about Christians is an issue of logic.

Again, this doesn't tell us much of anything. I don't see any point in accepting anything he says as factual.

OK? Do you understand what I'm arguing? I'm not disputing fact, but I am disputing logic.

Perhaps it might help if you developed it beyond the claim itself.

No--I don't think you know what my argument is.

Could be. There are a few sentences that could use some punctuation for clarity.

I'm just being logically consistent and recognizing a special-pleading fallacy in Christian apologetics regarding the testimony of Tacitus.

I already addressed this. Using your own example of testimony presented in court, we have the claims made about the defendant which are then proven to be false. Does this then refute or prove the defendant doesn't exist? Of course not. Q.E.D.

If you think I posted a strawman argument,

I just looked it over again. You're right. It's not a strawman argument.

I posted my own point of view about Jesus being both a historical figure and God which isn't an argument at all much less a strawman argument.

I agree. It's just a vague claim. The biblical god is personified in Christ, but transcendence or a transcendent god cannot be personified. Moreover, a person (from "persona" which is defined as "a mask; what is presented") objectively exists while the identity a person constructs doesn't exist as anything more than an abstract construction of the mind. In other words, who you may think you are necessarily can't be who you are.

Likewise, God cannot be a person. God cannot be presented to the world. The objective persona must be removed, denied or sacrificed to reveal the true subject which in Christ's case is God. Most apologists are inclined to add "himself" which is incorrect.

The son is the persona or self which when removed reveals the father. Christ is the self, icon, identity, mediator, metaphor, symbol, door, way, etc. etc. etc. while God is the origin (1 Corinthians 8:6)

So, God cannot be historical at all because the personification of God or God's will is not God. The history of theology is not the theology of history. God is not a historical figure whether he's personified or not. To conflate God with a persona is to look at a window rather than looking through it. Christ points out that he is the way, the doorway, the window, etc. He's not what is seen through the window. This is one of the most ridiculous errors of Christianity. The link below provides an apt analogy.