LOL Physical tombs hail from hearsay? Ok! Coins that bear the name of Alexander on them is hearsay as well? Hahaha!
Yeah, Greek gods on coins but there is no proof of them ever so what is your point, we’re not claiming the Greek gods in man form nor were they.
No, Tacitus only mentions Jesus a small bit. Alexander is mentioned tons through out different writings. So no, not greater quality. That’s your own biased belief. Did I say hearsay was evidence? I just gave you physical tombs and coins. Far more than what Jebus Christus has. You argue for the sake of arguing. I’m done here. I guess Aristotle isn’t a real man either then huh? When he was the teacher of Alexander. Who taught Jebus? The Spaghetti monster in the sky? Not only hearsay testimonies, because they can date it to proper time and era. Not to be said of your Shroud of Turin fraud.
The first books written about Alexander were not hearsay, they contained eyewitness accounts. Of which were copied later on before their being destroyed.
As I said, it lines up with timeline. Both physical evidence matching the dating and writings. Your magic man stories don’t match the timeline, certainly not the physical evidence. Of which you have none whatsoever.
Christian sources of christian evidence, does not count as evidence towards the whole. Because it’s biased.
Just to make it clear, I don’t have the same position as Artimas. He appears to be trying to disprove that a guy named Jesus existed about 2000 years ago. I don’t. I don’t care whether a guy named Jesus existed about 2000 years ago.
[size=150] My disproof and the disproof of the video I provided in my OP in this thread is against the Jesus persona as described in the Bible. The Jesus who is the son of God, performed miracles, got crucified, came back to life etc. Not merely against the idea that there was a guy named Jesus who used to preach his views.[/size]
Now THAT is something I’m yet to hear good arguments/evidence for. I mean, what would plausible evidence that there were miracles in the past look like? How could we discern between the true and false claims of miracles? Not to mention how unscientific the sole idea of a miracle is… one, it goes against natural laws which have proven themselves to be pretty fucking consistent, two, psychology has numerous other ways to explain why humans would lie about perceiving miracles or how humans could be tricked into believing they actually saw a miracle but it was a mere hallucination f.e.
Show-Me, you appear eager to argue this subject, can you answer my challenge?
I argue against the magic man and the historical figure Jesus. Sure. A man could be named Jesus, there are people named Jesus today as well. Sure he could have preached his word. There are men today that preach their word. But don’t call him Jesus Christ and bow to him because you think he’ll save you in the end. If he existed at all he was just a mere man as all humans.
It’s just a name and preaching. Hardly deserves so much appraisal.
Since the Jesus in the story is a miracle worker and divine son of god. Then Jesus must be looked at as such, otherwise it isn’t the same Jesus. Anyone can take hold of name and preaching. There are other Jesus’ through out history yet we do not say “Oh, praise you Jesus.” Because that is not the miracle worker divine son of god. If he is given those traits in his story and then said to have existed then that is Jesus. If he wasn’t a real miracle worker and divine son of god that has been shown to exist, then that is not the same Jesus.
Maybe I missed something but I did not read where anything in the tomb tied it directly to Alexander the Great. What tied it to Alexander the Great was the hearsay testimony. I said the the coins were corroborating evidence for the hearsay testimony, it increases the credibility of the hearsay testimony. The coins can be assumed to be Alexander the Great based on the testimony of the hearsay writings from centuries later. Without the hearsay writings the tomb is nameless and the coins could be from anybody named Alexander. The proper context and the corroboration comes from the hearsay writings for both the coins and the tomb.
Yes Tacitus is of greater quality because it is much closer to the historical Jesus. He had no reason to confirm or deny the existence of Jesus. He had access to a very reliable source within a very short time period after the time Jesus was alive (especially compared to Alexander the Great). Therefore the information from Tacitus is of better quality than the hearsay information of Alexander the Great.
The Jews on the other hand were very biased and had every reason to deny his existence. So their testimony is also of high quality for two reasons, one because it was within a short period of time afterward and because they didn’t deny his existence when if it was true that Jesus wasn’t a historical person they would have almost certainly pointed this out. They did not. So the testimony of the Jews is of higher quality for multiple reasons.
So, the second hand testimony on Alexander the Great is better in quantity, but not in quality. And that’s not my bias it’s a Principle of Historical Method -
The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
And where did you get the information that he was a king, conquered the known world, and was taught by Aristotle from…hearsay sources. So you must be accepting hearsay evidence but for some reason you don’t want to just come out and say so?
And based on what information did the archeologists claim that these tombs belonged to Alexander the Great? Hearsay evidence from writers writing centuries later who claim to have used eyewitness sources. So do you accept there testimony that they were using eyewitness sources and on what basis?
I’m trying to determine what your criteria for evaluating evidence. You keep quoting information from the hearsay sources about Alexander but you don’t seem to want to acknowledge that they are hearsay sources by your definition.
I never said anything about the Shroud of Turin?
No copies of these eyewitness accounts are currently extant, therefore what Diodorus Siculus and Arrian wrote was all hearsay by definition unless you are advocating that whenever a source claims they are using an eyewitness source that we accept that as being the same as eyewitness testimony?
So you are agreeing that hearsay evidence can be valid evidence?
Tacitus and the Jews are not Christian sources or evidence, both of which as I pointed out, are biased against Christianity which strengthens their reliability about a historical Jesus. I haven’t quoted a single Christian source.
The problem with your position that others have pointed out also, is that the people who are experts and are the professional historical scholars, from all different philosophical perspectives (including atheists), who spend their entire life time studying and evaluating all the historical evidence almost all would agree with the following:
A Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and supposed wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.
If you want to insist that you know more than they do, then so be it. The experts arrive at the above conclusion by consistently applying the Principles of Historical Method. I’m merely pointing out that you are not being consistent in whatever methodology that you are using.
What Tacitus says, he is just repeating the myth given by the Christian terrorists who set Rome on fire during Nero’s reign.
What is odd about the account is that “Christus” a cult leader, not the son of God, or any thing of the kind. Just the Bin Laden of his time.
Tacitus does not mention “Jesus”,
He simply repeats the myth of the crucifixion of the “christ”, as a mischieveous SUPERSTITION.
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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired…
I think you also miss the point of which the “hearsay” you are deeming as such is copied from writings older than themselves that were destroyed. The first writings about Alexander had eyewitness accounts, his soldiers. Has a country/city named after him, a currency. His name has been etched in tons of places. Yet divine son of god isn’t recorded? What a pity shame.
Here, have this too.
You can’t compare a man with huge amounts of recordings, physical evidence and matching the timeline to date to a miracle worker who has hardly anything.
Doesn’t even compare. Genghis Khan was a better argument than Alexander.
So a myth known as Christus was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilatus? I think that you need to re read this a little more carefully because either you are wrong about your interpretation, or almost all the professional historians of ancient history are reading it wrong cause this indeed is what the vast majority of historians are using as evidence that Jesus was a real historical person who was crucified during the reign of Tiberious by the Procurator Ponius Pilatus. He’s referring to the religion of Christianity as a mischievous superstition that eventually spread to Rome, not that the crucifixion of Christus was a superstition.
Why would the Roman Tacitus report that the great and powerful Romans crucified someone that was a myth? He’s flat out stating a fact that Christus was executed by Pontius Pilate.
Sorry Lev, this is a standard criterion of historical evaluation (also a principle of legal evaluation). If someone who is hostile to a given position, provides testimony that supports what they are hostile to, it is considered strong evidence that they are telling the truth.
If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
The Romans and the Jews had absolutely no reason to create bias that would support Christianity in any way. Their bias would have made them likely to deny the existence of Jesus, not confirm it. Common Sense.
I think you’re missing the point of what constitutes “hearsay”.
Definition of Hearsay:
Hearsay is the legal term for testimony in a court proceeding where the witness does not have direct knowledge of the fact asserted, but knows it only from being told by someone.
Definition of secondhand:
Second hand - not directly known or experienced; obtained from others or from books.
If we had copies of these original destroyed documents then that would be first hand eyewitness accounts. We do not, so what we have is second hand hearsay. These authors may very well have had copies of these original accounts but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s second hand hearsay evidence. We have to rely on this second hand information for almost all of what we know about Alexander.
I’ve never denied the existence of Alexander, I’m just pointing out that you’re relying on the hearsay evidence to know anything about him. As I pointed out with the tomb, the reason the archaeologists can assume it’s Alexander’s is because of the hearsay testimony. I’m using Alexander as an example that was well known at the time of his life and roughly a contemporary to Jesus. Jesus was a back woods itinerate preacher to the Romans, after all they ruled the world at the time. They couldn’t have given a shit about him until the Christianity spread throughout their empire even into Rome. Jesus never set foot outside of Palistine and therefore was completely unknown outside of that area.
Do you think that I couldn’t easily come up with dozens of examples from ancient history that you couldn’t produce a stitch of archaeological evidence for, but yet almost all historians believe were real historical people based completely on second and third hand information. The point is for Alexander you have been using hearsay information to validate both the archaeological information and prove that he existed as a real person. That’s the way it is with ancient history, almost all of what we know is based on hearsay information.
All good corroborating evidence. But without the hearsay evidence you wouldn’t know much.
But you’re still relying on hearsay evidence. As I pointed out above, I used Alexander as an example because he was roughly contemporary to the time of Jesus. Also given that Alexander conquered the entire known world at the time, the available evidence for him is pretty pathetic. The real question is not why isn’t there more for Jesus, the question is way isn’t there way more and better biographical information for Alexander? It should be a 100 to 1 in his favor.
Well as I said above, I could easily have chosen a historical figure that’s widely accepted as a real historical person that has no archeological evidence and that is based on ALL second or third hand information. I think that to do that would be highly disingenuous. As matter of fact, that was one of the problems with the video. Comparing the evidence for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln to something that happened over 2000 years ago. They completed discredited themselves by doing that, it was a completely deceptive comparison. Of course you’re going to have better evidence for something that happened 150 years ago versus 2000 years ago. I chose not to do the same thing by choosing some one much older.
This seems to be a change in your position. In your earlier posts you seemed to be quite clearly arguing that there was not a real historical person.
My interpretation of this was that you were saying that Jesus didn’t exist as a historical person. Indeed you seemed to disagree that the following was true:
A Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and supposed wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.
This was my very first post. Are you now agreeing that this indeed is something that you would agree is a historically accurate statement?
What was Tacitus and the others again? Just historians.
I know exactly what hearsay is, and you mistake this isn’t the court room, nor am I using that as definition. This isn’t rumor because the documents were copied from Callistenes’ book before it being lost forever, which contained primary evidence and eyewitness accounts including himself. This isn’t just received from other ‘people’ firstly nor is it simple rumor having Alexander bear his mark all over the place.
I had linked it earlier in discussion before Alexander was brought up.
Hardly, hearsay isn’t the same as having eyewitness accounts along with archaeological findings. That’s hard proof. Let me repeat the first recordings of Alexander the great were written and formed by historians having discussing with Alexanders own men which are eyewitnesses. That isn’t the same as hearing it from a friend from a friend from a friend from a disciple. That many people in-between begs for the story to get twisted.
Tell that to the historians that found it. The coin was long before hearsay, so one could come to question why Alexander is marked on it without a book being read, along with other places in the world. Also along with the city named after Alexander. The hard evidence came before “hearsay” so I don’t get how you can say people wouldn’t know much without the writings. Makes no sense.
It is 100 to 1 in his favor because you have 0 evidence of Jesus, you have nothing to line up with the stories that are ‘recorded’, nothing lines up with the timeline, certainly not your ‘archaeological findings’ that do not match carbon dating. Pretty pathetic? Your man Jesus turned water into wine and conjured food, resurrected from death, healed peoples wounds and ailments, claimed himself son of god, born of a virgin without physical contact, control over nature, and so on. You’re telling me that Alexander would have more evidence than magic man? Lev is wrong… that’s comment of the day right there. War was known to all back then, conquering and blood shed, yet Alexander is still recorded, still his archaeological proof, coins, places marking his name, etc.
No, because we don’t have evidence of execution. No corpse, no writings outside the bible or 80+ years later. No clothes, no nothing. We don’t even have his fucking heritage properly written about and recorded. Mary? That’s it? No last name or anything to trace heritage?
We don’t know if it is historically accurate because there is not enough evidence to support that it was. It could be, but I doubt it due to insufficient amounts of evidence, hard evidence, and writings to match dating/timeline.
And your argument is the smartest. But, your argument goes to the differences between Washington and Jesus and skips over the similarities. What would the implications for you be if the Gospels were accepted as historical sources? Do you suppose that would mean that you would have to believe in miracles and worship Jesus? Would it preclude the possibility that the writers were passing on stories that they heard or read about that referred to an actual man but were embellished by the storytellers? Why isn’t that a possibility?
Anyway, whatever you decide, it seems to me that our common situation is that we can’t know for certain one way or another whether Jesus actually existed. So whether a person makes a judgment about it one way or the other or not, we are all in the same boat of not knowing.
“Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe”.
Whoever wrote this commentary seems to know the difference between second hand and first hand information. Someone claiming that their account is based on eyewitness testimony IS NOT the same as eyewitness testimony. It’s at best second hand information.
Notice from the definitions:
“does not have direct knowledge” is the equivalent of “obtained from others”. So Hearsay is the equivalent at best of second hand and could be third or fourth, etc.
Notice also the claim that Alexander was the Son of Zeus. So much for the argument about their being no claims for the supernatural in regards to Alexander.
This has nothing to do with whether the source is first hand, second hand etc. Look carefully at what you referenced above. Your source is plainly stating that the only extant information that we have is tertiary which is considered not as good as second hand.
There is a reason why neither courts or historians would accept your definition. The phrase “that one cannot adequately substantiate” is vague enough to create a hole wide enough to drive a truck through. “adequately substantiate” is completely subjective.
From the video:
2. First-hand information is more credible than second-hand, which is more credible than third-hand, etc.
Base on your above commentaries we can precisely state that the extant biographies of Alexander the Great are third-hand.
So is it your position that if an author claims that an account is based on eyewitness testimony that it is to be considered the same as eyewitness testimony?
It’s simple, without using the later tertiary writings, and with all previous writings lost, i.e. not extant, give me a biography of Alexander the Great based solely on finding a coin of a certain date with the name Alexander on it and a city named Alexandria. Make sense now?
I’m not saying the archaeological information isn’t important and valuable. But it’s value is that it corroborates the more important tertiary written biographies of Alexander. It should be apparent to you that without this tertiary written information, we don’t know jack shit about Alexander. And the written information is tertiary, and that’s a fact. The source you quoted calls it tertiary.
Not the point I’m making. As I said I can easily come up with a historical figure that all historians would agree existed as a real person where there is nothing available as evidence but second-hand or worse testimony and no archaeological evidence. Is that what I need to do to make the point?
I also want an answer to the following question so that there is no question about your position on this:
Is it your position that if an author claims that an account is based on eyewitness testimony that it is to be considered the same as eyewitness testimony?