The evolution of an atheist.

Bikerman, I'm afraid your answer is superficial and doesn't really address my questions.Let's grant that Rome had a massive archive, including full records of the deeds of every Governor, Prefect or similar official, (I'm not convinced that records this detailed would have been copied to Rome rather than being left in local archives, but let's assume that the records were there, in Rome where Tacitus could find them).Given that, the question becomes why Tacitus was looking at those records out of all that huge archive and how he managed to identify "Christ" out of the many Pilate had executed. Bear in mind that there's no sign of Tacitus even knowing the name "Jesus", and that it is unlikely that he had a date for the crucifixion - not even the year.It just doesn't seem likely to me that Tacitus would do all that. Certainly I don't think he would do that for the sake of the short reference we do have. And if he happened to look at those records for some other reason it seems unlikely to me that that information would have been obvious to him.

Because he was writing specifically about the history of post Augustine events (in the annals). He manages to mention other notable events in Judea but misses this one. There seems to be a view that it was minor and therefore easily missed, but I still maintain that this is incompatible with the gospels. Thousands and thousands of people greet Jesus as he enters Jerusalem. He is the King of the Jews, not some ordinary tin-pot rebel. Then he is arrested, tried and crucified and then appears back from the dead to appear before hundreds of witnesses and give them a lecture.
I cannot go along with the notion that this would have been anything other than MASSIVE news.

Analogise it. Let's say that a known figure appeared in your home town/city - make him a pop star. He does a gig to 10,000 fans. That night he ODs on smack and dies.. Three days later he appears in the town centre and gives a little accoustic gig to a few hundred people.
Does the word of this spread like wildfire? You bet it does.
Would they hear of it in Rome? Yep, and in the rest of the world as well.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Because he was writing specifically about the history of post Augustine events (in the annals). He manages to mention other notable events in Judea but misses this one. There seems to be a view that it was minor and therefore easily missed, but I still maintain that this is incompatible with the gospels. Thousands and thousands of people greet Jesus as he enters Jerusalem. He is the King of the Jews, not some ordinary tin-pot rebel. Then he is arrested, tried and crucified and then appears back from the dead to appear before hundreds of witnesses and give them a lecture.

---

Hold on, we're talking about the Tacitus reference to the execution of the "Christ" and whether it came from Roman records (as you say) or from Christian sources (as I suspect). Now that particular piece is in the context of the aftermath of the great fire in Nero's reign. Tacitus alleges that the Christians were made the scapegoats and mentions the execution as an aside.So I have to ask, are you assuming that the Gospels are actually correct and therefore Tacitus must have noticed this event and connected it to the Christians of his day ? (If so, I'd like some evidence that Tacitus did notice similar events in the same timeframe). If not, and if you are assuming that Jesus was not so significant doesn't it support my point that Tacitus likely did not get his information on the execution from Roman records ?

quote:

---

So I have to ask, are you assuming that the Gospels are actually correct and therefore Tacitus must have noticed this event and connected it to the Christians of his day ?

---

If the gospels are fiction then I would say that Jesus wouldn''t have been noticed by anyone and Tacitus would probably have mentioned him as you propose. However if the gospels are made-up then this whole conversation becomes a bit moot doesn't it? We would be spending time discussing a minor 1st century nobody...

quote:

---

(If so, I'd like some evidence that Tacitus did notice similar events in the same timeframe). If not, and if you are assuming that Jesus was not so significant doesn't it support my point that Tacitus likely did not get his information on the execution from Roman records ?

---

Well...he mentioned many events in Judea in these years - I gave a list on the previous page somewhere near the top I think....
Here you go..just retrieved it:
26AD: protest to Pilate about icons
c30AD: protest to Pilate about use of Temple funds
c30AD: prophetic claims of John the Baptist
35-55AD: banditry of Eleazar
36AD: prophetic claims of 'Samaritan Prophet'
40AD: protest to Petronius about statue in Temple
45AD: prophetic claims of Theudas
45AD: banditry of Tholomaeus et al
50AD: protest to Cumanus about soldiers' impiety
50AD: banditry near Beth-horon
c55AD: prophetic claims of unnamed prophets
c55AD: prophetic claims of 'Egyptian Prophet'I think several of those would rank as similar .... and they must surely have come from Roman records....Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If the gospels are fiction then I would say that Jesus wouldn''t have been noticed by anyone and Tacitus would probably have mentioned him as you propose. However if the gospels are made-up then this whole conversation becomes a bit moot doesn't it? We would be spending time discussing a minor 1st century nobody...

---

Since we have good reason to think that the Gospels were exaggerated and not even that reliable historically (we can't even be sure of the date of the crucifixion) I think that it is reasonable to say that if Jesus did exist he didn't stand out that much among all the other cult leaders of the time (like John the Baptist).

quote:

---

Well...he mentioned many events in Judea in these years - I gave a list on the previous page somewhere near the top I think....
Here you go..just retrieved it:
26AD: protest to Pilate about icons
c30AD: protest to Pilate about use of Temple funds
c30AD: prophetic claims of John the Baptist
35-55AD: banditry of Eleazar
36AD: prophetic claims of 'Samaritan Prophet'
40AD: protest to Petronius about statue in Temple
45AD: prophetic claims of Theudas
45AD: banditry of Tholomaeus et al
50AD: protest to Cumanus about soldiers' impiety
50AD: banditry near Beth-horon
c55AD: prophetic claims of unnamed prophets
c55AD: prophetic claims of 'Egyptian Prophet'

---

Are you sure that Tacitus mentioned these ? I've looked through your past posts to this thread and you don't attribute anything to Tacitus except the reference in the context of the Great Fire. The similar list in Message 87 is attributed to Josephus, who, of course, had Jewish sources. (I also checked Annals Book V covering 30 AD and it has no reference to Judaea at all.)So there's no reason to suppose that Tacitus uncovered a reference to Jesus' crucifixion in earlier research (because he doesn't write about events in Judea in that period) and even less reason to suppose that he would have gone diving into the archives for the sake of an aside. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Wouldn't Tacitus have include the name had he access to actual official records concerning a Jesus? Not having the person's name seems a strong indicator that we're talking at best third-hand information.

YOu should review kapyong's post about Jesus and the ancient sources.
Message 8

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I did read it and thought it was excellent.
That doesn't mean I have to agree with every point and this is one where I am not sure. I take all the points that are made about errors in the description - there are actually a couple more to boot.
I'll respond in a bit more depth later...got to go now for a while...

Yes you are correct - I'm mixing up my Josephus and my Tacitus - those are indeed all attributed to the former not the later...my mistake, mea culpa.
Looks like I may have to change position on this one and accept the position that Tacitus used later Jewish sources - it does indeed seem that this is the best explanation.
That means going back to Josephus again.
Your position seems to be that the accounts of the passover entry into Jerusalem are probably exaggerated (at least) and that perhaps the tales of the appearance after the crucifixion are also a bit questionable. Would that be fair?
That is pretty much my own position - I was playing devils advocate by assuming the gospel accounts were accurate in an attempt to show that if they were, it isn't consistent with the 'jesus as low key character' theory.

Oh, the Gospels are definitely not consistent with the idea that Jesus was too unimportant to be noticed, even if you ignore the more dramatic supernatural elements.The post-resurrection accounts have definitely been added to probably to the point where they bear little resemblance to anything that actually occurred. Matthew and Luke reflect different ways in which the story changed, that much is obvious from the disagreements. I suspect that there may have been something there, but all of it known phenomena. Thinking that you see someone in a crowd - but it isn't (do you remember the wave of "Elvis sightings" after his death ?). "Feeling" the presence of a someone you knew who now is dead. Dreams of the dead person, maybe even a hallucination or two.

There is no contemporary, non-biblical evidence for anyone resembling this Jesus. There are so many claims that there were extensive Roman records, but no one can show any roman record that mentions Jesus of the bible or any circumstance mentioned in the bible. I constantly hear that the must have accessed original Roman records, but there is no evidence that anything historical that was written about Jesus in the 1st and 2nd century was not hearsay or a later interpolation(forgery). None.You are conceding the possible existence for a person that there is NO historical evidence for.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No, I'm not conceding it. I simply say that my own opinion at present is that there might have been a person upon whom the later myth is based, and that I find it probable - not certain, definitely NOT conceded as fact. I don't think that is an unreasonable position. I have a similar position with regard to Socrates, for whom there is also little or no contemporary historical evidence (unless you count the dramatic stories by Plato et al, which I don't think are meant as historical reference and cannot be read as such).* It is just an opinion, not an assertion, and I would be quite happy to change my opinion if I could - but I have to be honest to myself at least, As an atheist it is probably easier to believe that there never was such a person, but I try to apply the same sceptical consideration to my own beliefs as I do to those of others, and than means also giving the same benefit of the doubt where I see such doubt...* Though I should be clear - the evidence for Socrates is greater by some margin than that for Jesus.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

I don't see it that way. Another surprise eh We talked about the fact that science doesn't agree with common sense. I think that reason can lead us to a choice of religion. (I of course agree that the surrounding culture tends to cloud our reason.)The world does appear to be designed. I believe that this implies a designer. I cant prove that to be the case but my fallible reason leads me to this conclusion. It makes sense to me that any designer (s) would have an on-going interest in what he/she/it/they created. Now that Ive gotten this far Im inclined to believe that seeing as how I have the ability to reason and the imagination to contemplate the nature of this designer I believe that it is reasonable to believe, (I know thats a lot of believes‘ ), that I can at least learn something of the nature of the designer.There does seem to be an underlying code in our lives. We seem to instinctively recognize fairness and justice. We obviously can and do ignore this code out of self interest, but I think that most of us recognize that there is something there that calls us to something other than a life that is completely about self interest.So when you say that there is no way to tell whether a particular theology is better than another one I suggest that this is a good place to start. Which religion has the premise that best promotes an altruistic life style and to what degree. Which religion eschews power for the sake of power? Also of course it doesnt mean that any one religion has a lock on all truth and that the others are all wrong. I think that that all modern religions advocate altruism to one degree or another.Of course all that only gets you so far and to get from there to Christianity takes a lot more study and a leap of faith. In my case I found that after I became a Christian over the years things happened that I subjectively believe only happened because I seemed to have a connection with God that I didnt have before.As far as Christianity is concerned I think that there is some extremely bad theology around with the prosperity gospel being at the top of the list. I remember hearing it preached one time that there was a lot of wealth around and God would rather that the Christians have it than the non-Christians. I nearly threw up. The point is that there is considerable disagreement amongst Christians themselves.Anyway Ive rambled on here so Ill just finish with listing three very basic books on Christian apologetics that have produced and solidified my Christian beliefs.
Mere Christianity by CS Lewis
Simply Christian by N T Wright
The Reason for God by Timothy KellerOn basic theology I found the best book to be Surprised by Hope by N T Wright.And when it comes to reconciling science and faith; I found John Lennoxs book Gods Undertaker V Has Science Killed God? fascinating. In that field I also have books by John Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath and others.I just list these books, (all Brits by the way except for Keller and Collins) to give you an idea of the road I have travelled and what has formed my thinking, and hopefully to make the point that it isnt just blind faith and that we can use our reason to come to conclusions about what it is that we believe.

quote:

---

The world does appear to be designed. I believe that this implies a designer. I cant prove that to be the case but my fallible reason leads me to this conclusion. It makes sense to me that any designer (s) would have an on-going interest in what he/she/it/they created. Now that Ive gotten this far Im inclined to believe that seeing as how I have the ability to reason and the imagination to contemplate the nature of this designer I believe that it is reasonable to believe, (I know thats a lot of believes‘ ), that I can at least learn something of the nature of the designer.

---

I thought we had established that the laws of physics account quite nicely for the earth, and the 'laws' of biology in the form of evolution account for us. Is that now not your view?

quote:

---

There does seem to be an underlying code in our lives. We seem to instinctively recognize fairness and justice. We obviously can and do ignore this code out of self interest, but I think that most of us recognize that there is something there that calls us to something other than a life that is completely about self interest.

---

But this is all explicable using the basic evolutionary paradigm - there is no need to complicate the picture with extra entities. Occam and his razor are the friends of the thinking man, don't be afraid to use them.

quote:

---

So when you say that there is no way to tell whether a particular theology is better than another one I suggest that this is a good place to start. Which religion has the premise that best promotes an altruistic life style and to what degree. Which religion eschews power for the sake of power? Also of course it doesnt mean that any one religion has a lock on all truth and that the others are all wrong. I think that that all modern religions advocate altruism to one degree or another.

---

That is a terrible way to decide. No religion is followed to the letter by people for the simple reason that ALL religion is ambiguous. If religion were a set of rigorous statements about how to live an ethical life then it would be empirically testable and we wouldn't have any debate. No religion even gets close to that. The nearest would, IMHO, be Buddhism. Christianity is MILES away. Look honestly at the OT. You see a vicious, sadistic, narcissistic monster of a God. That is part of the heritage of the religion, so you are on a looser right there, since you then have to do some quick sidestepping or reinterpretations to put that to one side and say that the real message is in the NT. Hence we get the 'new covenant' (when in fact Jesus is quite clear that not one letter of the 'law' (OT) shall be put aside).Then, of course, we have the ambiguities in the NT which leave it so open to interpretation that we have...how many?...hundreds? thousands? of often competing, sometimes mutually exlusive, and always significantly different religious sects claiming to have the true interpretation of that single set of scriptures.Finally we have the empirical test - are Christians more altruistic, more ethical/moral than non-Christians? The only fair answer to that is - not on your life matey.If you want a simple, fairly unambiguous maxim/creed/doctrine then I'll give you one.1) Causing welcome good to others is always a moral/ethical act.
2) Causing unwelcome harm to others is always an imoral/unethical act.
3) All else is amoral/neither ethical nor unethical.There you go. Stick to that and you have your altruistic ethical perfection. It is called the universal ethic and is the basis of many forms of secular humanism.PS - I reckognise quite a bit of Polkinghorne in what you say, so I would have guessed that you had read him. Personally I find him very unpersuasive - he simply argues that atheism leads to an impovrished view of the world (subjective and wrong IMHO) therefore lets have religion. Everything else follows from that and is a classic case of post-hoc reasoning and begging the question, rather than scientific enquiry. He is quite honest about some things, but I find he is incredibly (or deliberately) 'naive' (to be generous) on his understanding of morality, ethics and aesthetics.
Finally I find his use of the reverse argument from ignorance troubling (ie the fact that we can understand much about the universe means that there has to be a designer, because otherwise our simian brains could not be expected to have grasped quantum physics, relativity etc). That is a very dodgy argument for anyone to attempt, let alone a scientist, and it demonstrates some profound misconceptions IMHO.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.