Did Polonius kill his wife? A problem with apolegetics (page 3)

bohm

Honesty: Any discussion regarding the reality of Jesus and His resurrection necessitates a degree of faith

I think you have just accepted my original point without being aware of it.

Caedes12 hours ago

I admit I don't have all the answers but that doesn't mean I should accept things for which there is no evidence. If as you say this discussion requires a degree of faith then you have already conceded that your argument is not based on evidence.

The point I am making is that it would be close-minded and foolish to state that you would not be willing to accept that you are wrong if you are presented with empirical evidence that contradicts your beliefs. if you are not prepared to accept that you could be wrong then there isn't a discussion in the first place.

So far you nor anyone else has provided any empirical evidence which proves Jesus was not a real person and was not resurrected.

Furthermore, there are millions of people alive today who experience the presence of Jesus in their everyday lives.

If you or anyone else can provide undeniable, documented proof that Jesus never existed and/or did not experience a resurrection I would be willing to concede that I am wrong.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus (55/56–c. 118 A.D.) was a Roman senator, orator and ethnographer, and arguably the best of Roman historians.

Tacitus’s last major work, titled Annals, written c. 116–117 C.E., includes a biography of Nero. In 64 A.D., during a fire in Rome, Nero was suspected of secretly ordering the burning of a part of town where he wanted to carry out a building project, so he tried to shift the blame to Christians. This was the occasion for Tacitus to mention Christians, whom he despised. This is what he wrote:

[N]either human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.

Tacitus’s terse statement about “Christus” clearly corroborates the New Testament on certain historical details of Jesus’ death. Tacitus presents four pieces of accurate knowledge about Jesus:

1. Christus, used by Tacitus to refer to Jesus, was one distinctive way by which some referred to him, even though Tacitus mistakenly took it for a personal name rather than an epithet or title.

2. Christus was associated with the beginning of the movement of Christians, whose name originated from His was executed by the Roman governor of Judea.

3. The time of his death was during Pontius Pilate’s governorship of Judea, during the reign of Tiberius. (Many New Testament scholars date Jesus’ death to c. 29 A.D.

Pilate governed Judea in 26–36 A.D., while Tiberius was emperor from 14–37 A.D.

Honesty

bohm

I think you have just accepted my original point without being aware of it.

I don't think i ever denied your original point, I just disagreed with your methods of trying to determine if Jesus was resurrected or not.

Caedes

Honesty,

The problem is that it is you who is making the claim that jesus was a real person and was resurrected, the burden of proof is on you. I am not making any claim about jesus merely stating that I have seen no evidence to convince me he was real or that he was resurrected.

The problem with your claim about Tacitus is that Tacitus was a meticulous historian and yet he only refers to the title christus not to jesus. His reference is only in relation to giving details of the source of the term Christian. His reference to Pontius Pilate also uses the wrong title for Pontius Pilate he wasn't procurator. The fact that a well respected Roman historian has the correct dates for events pertaining to the Roman empire should be of no surprise. What is a surprise is that he didn't know the name Jesus and didn't know Pontius Pilate's title. Perhaps his source for this small anecdote wasn't very reliable. Either way hardly conclusive evidence for jesus and zero evidence that jesus was resurrected.

Max Divergent

I just disagreed with your methods of trying to determine if Jesus was resurrected or not.

I don't think the OP had anything to do with determining anything about Jesus resurrection (or lack thereof). It was just saying the threshold for forming a faith belief is lower than for establishing other kinds of beliefs on similar evidence, and the inference is available that the threshold is too low for resultant beliefs to be given much credence.

It'd be more interesting to know if anyone believes Polonius killed his wife on the evidence provided.

Honesty

Caedes3 hours ago

Honesty,

The problem is that it is you who is making the claim that jesus was a real person and was resurrected, the burden of proof is on you. I am not making any claim about jesus merely stating that I have seen no evidence to convince me he was real or that he was resurrected.

The problem with your claim about Tacitus is that Tacitus was a meticulous historian and yet he only refers to the title christus not to jesus. His reference is only in relation to giving details of the source of the term Christian. His reference to Pontius Pilate also uses the wrong title for Pontius Pilate he wasn't procurator. The fact that a well respected Roman historian has the correct dates for events pertaining to the Roman empire should be of no surprise. What is a surprise is that he didn't know the name Jesus and didn't know Pontius Pilate's title. Perhaps his source for this small anecdote wasn't very reliable. Either way hardly conclusive evidence for jesus and zero evidence that jesus was resurrected.

I don't have any burden of proof regarding Jesus and i posted information from a Roman historian's point of view.

You can believe Jesus wasn't a real person and therefore wasn't resurrected or not.

No one is going to disfellowship you, figuratively stone you to death or cause you harm in any way no matter what you believe about Jesus unless you are a member of some wacky religious cult.

Your beliefs about Jesus doesn't affect how i should treat you,which is with respect as a fellow human being who is just trying to live your life the best way you see fit like everyone else.

Have a great weekend.

Caedes

Honesty,

You are correct I do not have to fear any of those things because I live in a largely secular country where atheism is not persecuted. Even in my country however we still have to fight to stop religious people from imposing their beliefs on those of us that don't share them. Beliefs that you cannot provide any evidence for.

Honesty

Caedes

Honesty,

You are correct I do not have to fear any of those things because I live in a largely secular country where atheism is not persecuted. Even in my country however we still have to fight to stop religious people from imposing their beliefs on those of us that don't share them. Beliefs that you cannot provide any evidence for.

I am glad that you live in a country where you can practice your belief (or is it more correct to say "disbelief"?) without persecution. Hopefully, your government is able to curtail the activities of religious wackos so you aren't bothered too much by them. Your country sound much like the Czech Republic where atheism is the predominant belief.

Did Polonius kill his wife? A problem with apolegetics

Caedes12 hours ago

Caedes3 hours ago

Share this