Friday, June 26, 2009

The Phony Standard of the Jesus Myth Scam

christ on cross



I've been "arguing" (really having a p-ing contest but you know) On ever loving CARM (from which I'm about to be expelled again). This time it's with Jesus myhters. They angered me because++ they were so rigid in insisting upon phony standard of historicity that even real historians would never support. It basically comes down to "unless you show a writer in the NT who literally says 'I was an eye witness to Jesus' then Jesus didn't exist." I made the arguments that I make for historicity and rather than argue the logic of the arrangements they just smugly insisted upon the little rigid silliness. So I started doing it back to them. I began demanding that they show a witness who said "I am an eye witness to Julius Cesar he really existed." I demanded that they say those very words, not even imply it that's not good enough. they demanded that our guys say those very words so why not. They went ape trying to meet that criteria.

You can see the original thread in which I grew perturbed at his game playing with this "he doesn't say he's an eye witnesses" and the rigidity of the standard.

these are coming from another thread that followed that one up.
here's how it went.


Here you go meta, so that we may continue the conversation concerning history of Jesus, though really now, the hundred post thing is slightly ridiculous. How these forums and threads are laid out, one particular thread can be turned into multiple ones in the thread.

Your choice to not read threads over a hundred posts stems from laziness, nothing more.

anyways, what is the said archaeological evidence you have of Jesus that apparently not having negates Julius Caesar.

Because you know, as I've shown you before, we have accounts written by Caesar that are undeniably from Caesar.

We have no writings FROM Jesus.



Meta:

so you are wiling to admit that by using your arguments and your logic we could rationally take Julie baby out of history as a real guy? I'm just using your criteria. We don't have anyone who says "I knew Julius Cesar, I am an eyewitness I saw him exist."

This shows us how phony and silly your demand for such evidence is. All the stuff you said in defending Cesar I showed that same kind of evidence exists in defending Jesus existence in history. But you are willing to take out one of the most firmly established characters of history just to get rid of Christianity, that is not a objective historicism by any means. it's stupid.

are a kid? are you in junior high? you reason like someone who has never been on his own.


so now he pulls out the big guns:
Jesus Myther:

Here is Caesar's funeral oration, given by Marc Antony.

http://www.megapathdsl.net/~sdutta/marcAntony.htm

Here are writings personally written by Caesar:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr...ext_caesar.htm

Quote:
If you had the quote you would use it. you are not quoting any because you don't have it. if you had it you would use it.
Here is a quote by Caesar just for you.

"Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true."
Julius Caesar
Can you believe this? He's quoting Shakespeare and that's supposed to prove it's historical!

He tries to prove that argument form silence is valid form of argument.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Gday,


Jesus Myther:
Why can't you get his name right, metacrock? How many times have you seen his name written, and you STILL get it wrong. Your reading skills are woeful.
Meta:
o yea that's really something to worry about your generation is way to hung up on formalities.
(Jesus Myther is not really his name--I can't remember his name I think its Kapyong--although there were three I was arguing with, but these aer his responses.).

Quote:Jesus Myther:
The evidence for Julius Caesar is vast, and DOES include contemporary and archeological

evidence :Meta:
what it doesn't include is a guy who says I am an eye witness I saw Cesar. until you have hat you have nothing because that's the standard you use of Jesus.



Quote:JM

*
writings from Caesar's own hand

Meta:
* prove they are! I have writtings form Peter's own hand.

Quote: JM
*
statues of Caesar made while he was alive

Meta:

we alread did this. the other did the same list. they don't prove it, you can't prove a statue is of a living person. We have statues of Mercury does prove he was alive?


[*
Quote:JM
coins showing his likeness changing as he aged
I have a dime with Mercury on it. does that prove he lived?




Quote:JM:
many eye-witness accounts of his actions (e.g. Cicero)

Meta:
they don't say they are eye witnesses according to your standards. they don't say "I am an eye witness I saw Cesar"

Quote:JM
*
archeological remains of his battles (e.g. Alesia)
Meta:
that only proves a battle happened. prove Cesar was in it?


Quote:JM
* his grave still known


Meta
Jesus grave is well known. I have show you four different churches (Orthodox, Ariminan, RCC, Protestant) that all say the same site is Jesus' tomb. Prove that your site is Cesar's tomb!

Quote:JM
Cicero was a historical contemporary of Caesar and wrote about him, and to him. Hard, conclusive, contemporary proof of Caesar.

Meta:
he doesn't say he was. why is it you are willing to accept this of Cesar but not of Jesus? why aren't you willing to meet the same standard you use to question Jesus' autenticity to prove Cesar?



Quote:JM
So was Sallust, Nepos, Catullus, Asinius Pollio, Virgil, Ovid - all contemporaries who wrote about Caesar during his life.


Meta:
same post the other guy made, You are just coping the same site he used. none of these guys go " I am an eye witness"

(there were three different mythers I was arguing with on this thread. One of them made the same exact post including the signature, wise cracks an all. I know the site he copied it from.

Quote:JM
For Jesus?
NONE of that.
NOTHING contemporary.

Meta
none of the guys for Cesar do


Quote:JM
It's chalk and cheese.
the other guy even had the same closing so you just cut and pasted this.

Meta:
Chalk and cheese? I don't get the reference but the other guy included it in his post too.

It finally ended up with this one by him

JM


There are numerous quotes from Cicero mentioning direct personal meetings with Caesar :

Cicero, Letters :
XV
To P. LENTTJLUS SPINTHER (IN CILICIA)
ROME (OCTOBER)

Here I was greatly influenced by two things the old friendship which you know that I and my brother Quintus have had with Caesar, and his own kindness and liberality, of which we have recently had clear and mistakable evidence both by his letters and his personal attentions.
...An additional motive was Caesar's memorable and almost superhuman kindness to myself and my brother,

Cicero mentions here :
* his FRIENDSHIP with Caesar
(* letters from Caesar to Cicero)
* Caesar's PERSONAL ATTENTION
* Caesar's kindness to him and his brother


There are many many such examples which show a direct personal meeting with Caesar :

Again, later on, there followed a very pressing request from Caesar that I should undertake his defence.

Caesar asks Cicero to defend him.


And yet I was very intimate with Caesar,

Cicero was intimate with Caesar.


all the more so now that Caesar daily receives me with more open arms, while his intimate friends distinguish me above everyone.

Caesar received Cicero with open arms.


Now omens as to the future are observed by me in what I may call a twofold method: the one I deduce from Caesar himself, the other from the nature and complexion of the political situation. Caesar's characteristics are these: a disposition naturally placable and clement--as delineated in your brilliant book of "Grievances"--and a great liking also for superior talent, such as your own. Besides this, he is relenting at the expressed wishes of a large number of your friends, which are well-grounded and inspired by affection.

Cicero observed Caesar's character.


On this head I am always struck with astonishment at Caesar's sobriety, fairness, and wisdom. He never speaks of Pompey except in the most respectful terms. "But," you will say, "in regard to him as a public man his actions have often been bitter enough."

Cicero describes how Caesar talks of Pompey.


Also--for I like to jot down things as they occur to me--that when on the request of Sestius I went to Caesar's house, and was sitting waiting till I was called in, he remarked: "Can I doubt that I am exceedingly disliked, when Marcus Cicero has to sit waiting and cannot see me at his own convenience? And yet if there is a good-natured man in the world it is he; still I feel no doubt that he heartily dislikes me."

Cicero recounts a MEETING with Caesar.


We continued to spar long after this. But in fact I do realize we can document Cesar's existence. That's not the point. The point is the rigidity of demanding the exact words "I am an eye witness." I just said to each one of these, and I cut and pasted the phrase He doesn't say he's an eye witness."

this is was going bonkers by this time. You can tell my the tone of his writting.

I ended that pos with quote NT quoets that do say point blank "I am an eye witness" alouth only one of them in those words:


"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

1:2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us." (1 John 1:1-2)

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,"(1 Pete 1:1)


I also quoted the passage in 2 Pete that says explicitly "we were eyewitnesses"

He tried to argue that 2 Pete is a forgery.He also tries to argue soemthing tot totally stupid about the first John Passage, he tries to say "that which was from the beginning" just means the good feeling they got thinking about the idea of Jesus.so they touched this good feeling with their hands, physically? the whole point of that is to say "he was solid." That was fighting the gnosticism.

We should expect Cesar to be better documented than Jesus. He was the leader, the center of the most civilized place in the world at that time, and the center of a great world empire. Jesus was a peasant in the sticks. No one in Rome cared what went on in Palestine and the center of writing and the writing of history was in Rome and done primarily for Romans. There's no problem Cesar being better documented than Jesus. Its' not mutually exclusive, not like if Cesar is proved then Jesus wasn't historical. The point is that with their phony standard of having to have an eye witness that literally says "I am an eye witness" even best documented characters in history can be made to look fictional.

The point of this whole post is that the Mythers are using sham standard when they demand the exact phrase "I was an eye witness" and we should not let them get away with it. That's a standards historians don't use, and as I've illustrated if they did about half of what's in history would vanish.

6 comments:

Derek said...

Wow......

That takes the stupidity cake.

How do we know these documents are really from Caesar or Cicero? There is no way to empirically prove this. How do we know Cicero existed at all? Maybe his writing was forged years later by people seeking to invent or re-invent a warrior-king for the Romans to look up to. Hell, considering this info all passed through Christian hands (and we KNOW they had no problem making stuff up) for our earliest extant copies, who knows how much was added or subtracted!!! Much less if Caesar was a real human or not!!! Archeological evidence? All that proves is that the archeologists’ handling of the data is wrong. After all, they're all committed to the idea that Julius Caesar was real, and therefore their research is biased. Hell again, they could be lying or fabricating all their evidence as they go. I certainly have never seen any of it with my own two eyes. How then, can I know?

Alas, this is the rabid paranoia fog people with historical judgment impairment (a terrible mental disorder running rampant among Jesus-mythers and Holocaust hoaxer) are destined to stumble into.

The fact is that when we understand Jesus' purported place in the social historical framework of the day (a low-class Jewish peasant-preacher-prophet) the fact that we have so much for him far outweighs the heavier standard for someone like Caesar who was the king of the world.

Read a book on the standards of historical epistemology for God's sake!

J.L. Hinman said...

how much stuff do you need to say someone existed in history? If Jesus wasn't the object of worship for Christians of course these guys would have no beef with his existence. There are not John the Baptist mythers.

I have no problem with Cesar existing. I expect to find tons of evidence for that he was the most powerful man of his day. How much does it really take jut to be able to assume that someone existed?

Derek said...

Indeed! This says nothing for people in b/w folks like Jesus/John/Honi the Circle drawer and kings like Ceaser. If it wasn't for one measley inscription (easily forged [cough]), tiny mentions in Josephus and Tacitus, and the NT (which can't be trusted! [double cough!]) we would know nothing about Pontius Pilate, who was Roman leadership in Palestine for ten years I believe. Where is all the evidence for him?

Great post Meta!

in Christ.
Dere

J.L. Hinman said...

hey thanks man

Loren said...

Historians are much more skeptical then what many Bible defenders seem to think. Though Livy's History of Rome is often relied on for Rome's early history, most historians do not automatically conclude that that work is right about Rome having been founded by the son of a god and a virgin who later rose up into heaven.

And about Julius Caesar, if he had described how his armies included a brigade of mages who shoot fire and lightning at the enemy armies, would you believe that?

J.L. Hinman said...

I am a historian. I was trianed in a history program in Ph.D. work. I was a Ph.D. candidate for several years in a history program. I was teaching assistant for a big named historian. You don't know anything about historians you were not trained as one. I presented my own papers at professional conferences for historians. you don't know how to be a historian. I am one.

I ask my committee chairman, who is an atheist, and the big name historian (from Cambridge) that I wored for what they thought of Doherty. they both said, independently, "why are you wating your time arguing with idiots?"