religion

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...

"Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore proof-read) his work."

Yeah, I read that on Wikipedia too. Please use quotes for your sources and cite them. Let's look at exactly what Tacitus says.

"Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."" - http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

So there you have it.

"Standing on his own merit it may be hard to accept Josephus claim about Christ as historic, but as it is in harmony with Tacitus an esteemed historian then it is an acceptable piece of historical evidence."

Both are highly controversial and neither even come close to proving that Jesus was a deity.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes I have no problem with scientific experiments, in fact I find them fascinating. But the aforementioned scientists also offer much speculation and conjecture themselves. Yet they are not doubted as being authentic.

In the U.S., 46% hold the creationist views of Christians. I would say there is plenty of skepticism. There is nothing stopping Christians from funding real scientific research into what they are claiming. Until they actually do this and produce some tangible evidence they wont be taken seriously.

[iruinedyourday]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Tenlaar]

Well I am glad I didn't have to type all that shit myself when I got home. Good looking out, Leewong.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Tenlaar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well I am glad I didn't have to type all that shit myself when I got home. Good looking out, Leewong.

It had actually been pretty slow here today.

*props feet up on the desk

[leewong]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It had actually been pretty slow here today.

*props feet up on the desk

*has

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In the U.S., 46% hold the creationist views of Christians. I would say there is plenty of skepticism. There is nothing stopping Christians from funding real scientific research into what they are claiming. Until they actually do this and produce some tangible evidence they wont be taken seriously.

All scientific experiments show that there is design and complexity in nature.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore proof-read) his work."

Yeah, I read that on Wikipedia too. Please use quotes for your sources and cite them. Let's look at exactly what Tacitus says.

"Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."" - http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

So there you have it.

"Standing on his own merit it may be hard to accept Josephus claim about Christ as historic, but as it is in harmony with Tacitus an esteemed historian then it is an acceptable piece of historical evidence."

Both are highly controversial and neither even come close to proving that Jesus was a deity.

Prefect (from the Latin praefectus, perfect participle of praeficere: "make in front", i.e., put in charge) is a magisterial title of varying definition, but which, basically, refers to the leader of an administrative area.

A prefect's office, department, or area of control is called a prefecture, but in various post-Roman empire cases there is a prefect without a prefecture or vice versa. The words "prefect" and "prefecture" are also used, more or less conventionally, to render analogous words in other languages, especially Romance languages.



A procurator Augusti, however, might also be the governor of the smaller imperial provinces (i.e., those provinces whose governor was appointed by the emperor, rather than the Roman Senate). The same title was held by the fiscal procurators, who assisted governors of the senatorial provinces (known as a legatus Augusti pro praetore, who were always senators). In addition, procurator was the title given to various other officials in Rome and Italy.

The argument that he should gave used prefect instead of procurator is invalid. The same person could have many titles in the roman system.

And in the trial if Jesus Pilate was acting in the official capacity as a roman procurator.

[Whirled]

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." = Stuart Chase

/thread

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All scientific experiments show that there is design and complexity in nature.

C'mon, I know you are smarter than this Robot. Complexity and what appears to be "design" are byproducts of natural selection. Both can easily be accounted for by the mechanisms of evolution.