• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Legion

Sure. We have solid direct archeological evidence for Ceaser, Rome has statues, engravings, coins corroboration from dozens of sources
We have these for Zeus, Athena, etc. Are they historical to? Again, we have more archaeological evidence for mythical deities than for any historical person from antiquity. They are depicted on coins, they survive as graffiti in brothels, there statues and depictions litter temples dedicated to them, and like the Caesars they were worshipped widely (although their worship wasn't as monitored or enforced as strictly).

Every kind of archaeological evidence that we have for Julius Caesar exists in spades for mythological deities or demigods.


You counter with the bizarre claim that we have more evidence of deities - which is laughable.
So is the claim that Nero had an extensive intelligence agency, that quoting scholarship is a fallacious appeal to authority, that Paul isn't contemporary evidence for Jesus, and so on. The problem, though, is that while you can claim it is laughable you are left with the fact that on the one hand you claim X evidence (coins, statues, etc.) is evidence for an historical figure, and on the other you claim that the exact same type of evidence that exists for mythological figures isn't evidence for an historical figure. Your only recourse to distinguish the two is an assumption that Julius Caesar is historical and thus his statues count as evidence, coins with his face count as evidence, and so on, while the same for mythical figures can be discounted because they are assumed to be so.

You are approaching this in precisely the opposite way you approach Jesus' historicity. You assume things about our evidence based on assumptions about Caesar that are the only basis for any logical reason to dismiss the same type of evidence for Zeus that we have for Caesar. Meanwhile, you don't even bother to research how and why the gospels, for example, should be considered what kind of genre. You could check out Wikipedia, but I wouldn't advise it. I wrote the entry on gospel genre years ago and I no longer believe the issue is as straightforward as I presented there.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Legion

Tell you what. Pick any deity from that time and debate me over the case for historicity over that of Julius ok?

Money where yer mouth is time.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Tell you what. Pick any deity from that time and debate me over the case for historicity over that of Julius ok?
You are assuming there is a period in which Julius Caesar existed, betraying again the assumptions underlying your interpretation of (secondary, summary) evidence of Julius Caesar. If, like Zeus, Mithras, etc., Julius Caesar was no more historical than the mythical heroes historians wrote of and connected to him or to Alexander the Great and for which we have archaeological evidence, than there is no "that time", short of centuries before and after Julius was said to have lived.

Even your offers (whether you'd follow through for the first time or no) belie your biases and acknowledge how thoroughly you're relying on assumptions granted you by the specialists you ignore when convenient.

Money where yer mouth is time.
I have. You responded by asking me to provide evidence from Julius Caesar's time period, which assumes he existed. Put your money where your mouth is and stop relying on such assumptions such that you don't depend upon the same kind of evidence for Julius Caesar that we have for Zeus.

Ironically, a central method you could use to show that our archaeological evidence for Caesar differs from most of our archaeological evidence of mythical/fictional/legendary figures is central to why Jesus is so obviously historical: a clear, obvious placement in a specific culture, time, location, etc. However, as you haven't indicated you understand the importance of such factors in distinguishing myths/legends from historical figures (whatever the legends and myths that grew up about them as represented in our sources), you are left with assuming there is any "evidence from Julius Caesar's time period" because you assume there was a Julius Caesar in order to demonstrate there was a Julius Caesar.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Legion

Absolutely. As I said - pick yer 1st century deity. Let's go.
No problem. I have all the evidence one could wish for in this csse. So lets do it. Shall we start with estabishing a D.O.B?
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
pick yer 1st century deity. Let's go.

Sure. Augustus Caesar. He's a first century deity. Also Zeus/Jupiter. Also a first century deity.

Either admit that you assumed Julius Caesar was historical in order to conclude that we should appeal to some specific timeline, or continue to spew nonsense that is so easily countered that I need but counter your request for "a 1st century deity" by selecting an historical figure.

I am aware you haven't studied logic, argumentation, mathematics, or research methods. However, it doesn't take formal training or even much informal familiarity with such topics to realize that when I can freely select from any "1st century deity" the emperor of Rome that your litmus test is pathetically incapable of any distinction between historicity and myth and woefully inadequate (which is why it isn't used by those whose claims to be historians are real, unlike your expertise which has ranged from "historian" to "expert in espionage" to "I majored in politics").
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Sure. Augustus Caesar. He's a first century deity. Also Zeus/Jupiter. Also a first century deity.

Either admit that you assumed Julius Caesar was historical in order to conclude that we should appeal to some specific timeline, or continue to spew nonsense that is so easily countered that I need but counter your request for "a 1st century deity" by selecting an historical figure.

I am aware you haven't studied logic, argumentation, mathematics, or research methods. However, it doesn't take formal training or even much informal familiarity with such topics to realize that when I can freely select from any "1st century deity" the emperor of Rome that your litmus test is pathetically incapable of any distinction between historicity and myth and woefully inadequate (which is why it isn't used by those whose claims to be historians are real, unlike your expertise which has ranged from "historian" to "expert in espionage" to "I majored in politics").

No. Augustus was a man. Pick again.

Zeus or Jupiter will do.

What day were they born?
Oh, and you claim to be an academic, but do not know that espionage and politics fall within the compass of arts degrees? Seriously? You don't know that politics, history and security studies are not all within the humanities?

As to studying logic, I am a hunter - I need no such parlor tricks. You failed with me at that anyway. I can establish the historicity of Caeser witout recourse to it. I have artifacts.
 
Last edited:

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No. Augustus was a man. Pick again.

Again with your assumptions. He was identified as the son of god, was said to have performed miracles or to be subject to them, etc. Before any non-Semitic writings identified Jesus as the son of God, Augustus was identified as such.

You assume, once again, that your conception of history is sound because you rely utterly upon authority except when you wish to dismiss experts to suit your biases. Now, being called out to support your reliance on authority because you can't support even the existence of emperors without assuming they existed, you can't (despite the mythologies that surround them and your utter inability to even properly identify historical sources, let alone distinguish historiography from mythology).

I picked a deity. This deity was worshipped as such according to every source available, and considered to be so by our primary sources. Your inability to develop an argument, or even address, such sources is simply indicative or your complete ignorance of historical scholarship and methods.

I gave you what you asked for. You responded by requesting a different deity because you assumed (based on appeals to authority you dismiss when convenient) that this individual wasn't a deity. You can now demonstrate that this is so, or admit what has been obvious since you claimed what historians thought about Jesus and repeatedly failed to give any indication that you were even aware of this, let alone able to quote-mine from scholars the way you tried to quote-mine Tacitus (and pathetically failed to).
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Legion

Crap! Augustus lived. He was a mortal man. Try your nonsense with Jupiter - or were you bluffing?
No historian has argued that Augustus was a deity, only that he claimrd to be and you know it. There are no Augustus worshipers here buddy. Augustus is just ANOTHER example of a better case than you have for JC - it is a counter example of your argument Legion. You are offering a counter example as support for your argument, and attacking my abilities at the same time. Kind of ironic. There is primary evidence of Augustus, without unnecessary appeals to authority.

Now find an example. SUPPORTIVE of your argument. Jupiter will do, or Zeus. What day were they born? Do you have evidejce of their birth and death for example? I have that for the Roman Emperors. Or would you concede them as a category? I would.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Legion

Or we could debate your idea that there was no organised intelligence gsthering in Nero's time?
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Legion

Crap! Augustus lived. He was a mortal man.
Are you so truly bereft of analytical skills that you fail to realize the implications of what you just said? I said, and it is true that, Augustus was worshipped as divine. He was considered a god in the same century Jesus lived. Your counter-argument is to assert that he was historical because...? You don't give any indication as to why and any you could be would easily be used against you as your are completely incapable of providing any criteria by which we can evaluate evidence from antiquity and your virtually complete absence of any knowledge either of primary or secondary sources is reduced to your infantile assertions that what you have claimed is true because you have said it.

You whine that Julius Caesar and August are historical despite even an attempt at real historical analysis because you don't have a clue. You honestly can't demonstrate the reasons for which or criteria why actual historians use (as opposed to those who first claim to be so, then claim to be experts in espionage, then admit they have an undergrad major in politics). You aren't just incapable of recognizing when you are quoting Tacitus vs. a translator's commentary of one of Tacitus' work you mistake for a volume of the translator: You actually cannot defend assertions about historical figures such as Julius Caesar or August Caesar without assuming they are historical in ways you refuse to do so for Jesus despite any familiarity with scholarship for all three.

You are a fantastic study in the ways in which dogma affects non-believers so thoroughly they have nothing or less than nothing to offer to real academia than do fanatics.

You cite a pathetically small number of sources when you can despite asserting that this is a fallacy.

You ask me to refer to a first century deity and I do but you assert this individual was historical because historians say so (which they do of Jesus, but your blatant bias and rather complete ignorance renders you incapable of realizing how laughable your comparisons and claims are).

You ask for a deity in Caesar's time to which we can compare Caesar without the fundamentally and trivially obvious logical implication that if there were any such time Caesar was necessarily historical.

You expand such blatant logical flaws by ignoring the contextual position in which all of our sources for Jesus place him and adopt instead no explanation of our sources or elucidation consistent with historical methods.

In short, you're the kind of person who claims to be an historian at one point, then an expert in espionage at another (and adds to this claims for various majors and expertise that are neither consistent nor can you show to have any basis).

Try your nonsense with Jupiter - or were you bluffing?[/QUOTE]
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Legion

Augustus was a COUNTER EXAMPLE Legion. Attacking me is ad hom.

So your example was Jupiter? When was he born?
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Legion

"You ask for a deity in Caesar's time to which we can compare Caesar without the fundamentally and trivially obvious logical implication that if there were any such time Caesar was necessarily historical.
"

Nope. Happy with that assumption. It is well recorded. No logical flaw there buddy.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Legion

Augustus was a COUNTER EXAMPLE Legion. Attacking me is ad hom.

I'm not just criticizing your complete inability to support your claims. I'm demonstrating you aren't. Augustus was MY counter-example. You asked for a deity in and around the time of Julius Caesar, demonstrating that you began by assuming he was historical without demonstrating why. I offered you a counter-example. Rather continue to demonstrate how Julius Caesar was considered divine and thus your differentiation between evidence for him and for mythic deities is not only spurious but clear indication of you double standards, I offered you another chance. I gave you yet another "god" about whom miracles and myth surrounded.


You are so utterly incapable of addressing an argument which requires some real knowledge of historical methods and ancient history that you fell back on your go-to response: dismiss & deny. Even better, you further showed how completely incapable you are of distinguishing what is or isn't history independently of real historians (rather than those who have claimed to be an historian, majored in history, a expert in espionage, and a major in politics/political science).

Legion

Crap! Augustus lived. He was a mortal man. Try your nonsense with Jupiter - or were you bluffing?
No historian has argued that Augustus was a deity, only that he claimrd to be and you know it.

I wish the above were the best indication that you are completely unable to address any evidence here or present any arguments or any indication that you possess the wherewithal to present a coherent argument even if you were sufficiently familiar with the subject matter.

I challenge you to present evidence that doesn't rely on what you have repeatedly claimed is a fallacious appeal to authority by demonstrating that our evidence for Julius Caesar is as unassailable as you have suggested. You couldn't, so you asked me to present an argument. I did so by naming another "god" of antiquity for whom we have myths and legends. Your response? Regurgitate the same non-response you did before: argue that Augustus Caesar is historical "just because". Even better, you appeal to authority here without even citing scholarship whereas elsewhere you decry real use of scholarship.

I'm not actually arguing against the historicity of those like Caesar. I'm demonstrating that your skepticism is nothing other than biased ignorance and the application of a double standard that, when push comes to shove, you have to fall back on whines like "No historian has argued that Augustus was a deity" despite repeated denials that explicit reference to actual scholarship is a fallacy. This isn't the first time you've dismissed actual scholarship only to appeal to what you claim historians do or say but are unable to demonstrate.

So your example was Jupiter?

Nope. I had examples. One of which was Augustus, a first century god. You responded with an appeal to authority as to his "real" nature (i.e., no historians think he was really a god).

When was he born?
According to historical sources, he was the son of god.

Legion

"You ask for a deity in Caesar's time to which we can compare Caesar without the fundamentally and trivially obvious logical implication that if there were any such time Caesar was necessarily historical.
"

Nope. Happy with that assumption. It is well recorded. No logical flaw there buddy.

Great. You're happy with assumptions that are recorded in manuscripts you've never seen in translations of languages you can't read that are determined to be authentic by methods you don't know. In short, you have blind faith in historical expertise because, like all of us, we have to depend on expertise (whether it is the dentist, a mechanics, or an historian). However, like a hypocrite, you aren't "happy" with assumptions when you don't like their conclusions. Even the word, "happy", demonstrates how biased and dishonest you are. You aren't interested in history (as evident by your inability even to distinguish between an ancient author and a 19th century translator); you're merely pretending to be interested in the dogma you vomited and espoused without evidence, knowledge, logic, or reason across more than one thread and so many posts I've lost count in (but in which you've claimed to be an historians, to have majored in history, to be an expert in espionage, to have majored in politics/political science, etc.).

Your credibility is aptly demonstrated by how "happy" you are to assume things when they are incompatible with your dogma.
 
Last edited:

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Considering Dawks claims the eye is wired up back to front, my eyesight is pretty good, I can easily spot a pretty woman from the other end of a crowded street..:)

Great. Can you see things clearly from space? We have telescopes to do that. Or what about microscopic level? Clearly see galaxies more than 100 million light years away? Nope.

But we have engineered cameras and telescopes to work as "false eyes" that are much better than our own.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
You are so utterly incapable of addressing an argument which requires some real knowledge of historical methods and ancient history


.


With no education at all, and no attempt to actually learn about the topic at hand, nothing will change here.


Denial of credible scholarships and methodology is just the tip of the iceberg with this one.
 
Pontius Pilate


Author's Background
Pontius Pilate (1 BC - circa AD 37) was the fifth Roman procurator of Judea (AD 26 - 36 ) under Emperor Tiberius, who sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion. The quotes below refer to the Acts of Pontius Pilate. The existence of the Acts of Pontius Pilate is strongly supported by Epiphanius (Heresies 50.1), Justin Martyr (First Apology, A.D. 150) and Tertullian (Apology, A.D. 200). The Acts of Pontius Pilate were kept in the Roman archives (Commentarii principis) as stated in the following quote.

The ancient Romans were scrupulously careful to preserve the memory of all remarkable events which happened in the city; and this was done either in their "Acts of the Senate" (Acts Senatus), or in the "Daily Acts of the People" (Acta Diurna Populi), which were diligently made and kept at Rome . . . In like manner it was customary for the governors of provinces to send to the emperor an account of remarkable transactions that occurred in the places where they resided, which were preserved in the "Acts of" their respective governments . . . we find, long before the time of Eusebius [3rd century], that the primitive Christians, in their disputes with the Gentiles, appealed to these "Acts of Pilate" . . . Thus, Justin Martyr, in his first "Apology" for the Christians, which was presented to the Emperor Antoninus Pius [A.D. 138-161] and the senate of Rome, about the year [A.D.] 140, having mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and some of its attendant circumstances, adds, "And these things were done, you may know from the 'Acts' made in the time of Pontius Pilate." [1]

It should be noted that some believe a fraudulent version of the Acts of Pilate was circulated later in the fourth and fifth centuries. This should not be confused with the original document that was generated in the first century, archived in Rome and was available to Caesar Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate. Otherwise, Justin Martyr's appeal to the Acts of Pilate in his First Apology would have lacked credibility. Both Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) and Tertullian (A.D. 200) refer to the document much earlier that the fradulent version.[2]


Reference To Jesus Christ
And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, “They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots.” And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. -

Justin Martyr, First Apology 35
And that it was predicted that our Christ should heal all diseases and raise the dead, hear what was said. There are these words: “At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about.” And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. - Justin Martyr, First Apology 48


Pontius Pilate - Refers To Christ In Official Records
 
Tacitus on Christ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fire of Rome, by Karl von Piloty, 1861. According to Tacitus, Nero targeted Christians as those responsible for the fire.

v t e
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4]

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] However, some scholars have suggested the 'Christ, the author of this name, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius' line is a Christian interpolation.[9][10]

Historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[11] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[12][13] These facts however are so narrowly established (see Other Roman Sources below) that they are subject to much scrutiny, like reports of Pilate's rank or the spelling of key words or Tacitus' actual sources.



A copy of the second Medicean manuscript of Annals, Book 15, chapter 44, the page with the reference to Christians
The Annals passage (15.44), which has been subjected to much scholarly analysis, follows a description of the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of Rome in July 64 AD.[3]

The key part of the passage reads as follows (translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876):

"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".

(In Latin:[2] ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.)

Tacitus then describes the torture of Christians. The exact cause of the fire remains uncertain, but much of the population of Rome suspected that Emperor Nero had started the fire himself.[3] To divert attention from himself, Nero accused the Christians of starting the fire and persecuted them, making this the first confrontation between Christians and the authorities in Rome.[3] Tacitus never accused Nero of playing the lyre while Rome burned - that statement came from Cassius Dio, who died in the 3rd century.[2] But Tacitus did suggest that Nero used the Christians as scapegoats.[14]

No original manuscripts of the Annals exist and the surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, written in Latin, which are held in the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy.[15] It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th century and from the Benedictine abbey at Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians.[16] Scholars generally agree that these copies were written at Monte Cassino and the end of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus cu... who was most probably one of the two abbots of that name at the abbey during that period.[16]


Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources, which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[35] These are two mentions in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and one mention in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus.[35][36]

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.[37][38] Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.[39][40][41][42]

Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[43] The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[44] and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[45] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.[44][46][47][48][49][50][50][51][52]

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I'm not just criticizing your complete inability to support your claims. I'm demonstrating you aren't. Augustus was MY counter-example. You asked for a deity in and around the time of Julius Caesar, emonstrating that you began by assuming he was historical without demonstrating why. I offered you a counter-example. Rather continue to demonstrate how Julius Caesar was considered divine and thus your differentiation between evidence for him and for mythic deities is not only spurious but clear indication of you double standards, I offered you another chance. I gave you yet another "god" about whom miracles and myth surrounded.

ROLFMAO

Wow Legion - you are a riot.

Soooooo......let me get this straight - When you said 'other 1st century deities- what you actually meant was 'other Roman Emperors'?

So you rebutted my claim that there was more evidence of Julius than for Jesus by saying that there is more evidence of several other Emperors as well?

So you are providing more examples of people back then who are better evidenced than JC, in order to refute my claim that there is more evidence of many other people?

How much have you had to drink today?
You are so utterly incapable of addressing an argument which requires some real knowledge of historical methods and ancient history that you fell back on your go-to response: dismiss & deny. Even better, you further showed how completely incapable you are of distinguishing what is or isn't history independently of real historians (rather than those who have claimed to be an historian, majored in history, a expert in espionage, and a major in politics/political science).



I wish the above were the best indication that you are completely unable to address any evidence here or present any arguments or any indication that you possess the wherewithal to present a coherent argument even if you were sufficiently familiar with the subject matter.

I challenge you to present evidence that doesn't rely on what you have repeatedly claimed is a fallacious appeal to authority by demonstrating that our evidence for Julius Caesar is as unassailable as you have suggested. You couldn't, so you asked me to present an argument. I did so by naming another "god" of antiquity for whom we have myths and legends. Your response? Regurgitate the same non-response you did before: argue that Augustus Caesar is historical "just because". Even better, you appeal to authority here without even citing scholarship whereas elsewhere you decry real use of scholarship.

I'm not actually arguing against the historicity of those like Caesar. I'm demonstrating that your skepticism is nothing other than biased ignorance and the application of a double standard that, when push comes to shove, you have to fall back on whines like "No historian has argued that Augustus was a deity" despite repeated denials that explicit reference to actual scholarship is a fallacy. This isn't the first time you've dismissed actual scholarship only to appeal to what you claim historians do or say but are unable to demonstrate.



Nope. I had examples. One of which was Augustus, a first century god. You responded with an appeal to authority as to his "real" nature (i.e., no historians think he was really a god).


According to historical sources, he was the son of god.



Great. You're happy with assumptions that are recorded in manuscripts you've never seen in translations of languages you can't read that are determined to be authentic by methods you don't know. In short, you have blind faith in historical expertise because, like all of us, we have to depend on expertise (whether it is the dentist, a mechanics, or an historian). However, like a hypocrite, you aren't "happy" with assumptions when you don't like their conclusions. Even the word, "happy", demonstrates how biased and dishonest you are. You aren't interested in history (as evident by your inability even to distinguish between an ancient author and a 19th century translator); you're merely pretending to be interested in the dogma you vomited and espoused without evidence, knowledge, logic, or reason across more than one thread and so many posts I've lost count in (but in which you've claimed to be an historians, to have majored in history, to be an expert in espionage, to have majored in politics/political science, etc.).

Your credibility is aptly demonstrated by how "happy" you are to assume things when they are incompatible with your dogma.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Legion

Seriously Legion, that was the worst, most asinine rebuttal I have ever encountered in ten years of debate.

Sure Legion, there is more evidence for the historicity of Augustus and many other important figures in the Roman world than there is for the historicity of Jesus.

You are refuting your own position and supporting mine, whilst simultaneously crapping on about how bad my scholarship is. Get a grip Legion.

Yes mate, there is more evidence for the historicity of Augustus AND Julius than there is for JC - how you thought that was a rebuttal I can only assign to alcohol.

When you must identify a Roman Emperor as a first century God, you Legion have clearly reached the limits of both your integrity and rhetorical ability.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top