Does God Exist?

[Menassa]

Meh... people die for all sorts of conflicting beliefs... Roman Pagans died for their gods.

Well, we all now Tacitus wrote about Jesus and Christians in AD 116:

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.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Tacitus lived after Jesus so he never actually witnessed him.

[Dyakovo]

Well, we all now Tacitus wrote about Jesus and Christians in AD 116:

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.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Tacitus lived after Jesus so he never actually witnessed him.

Not to mention the detail that, for some reason, Tacitus was apparently unaware of what Pilate's title was... Despite being an acclaimed historian and a a member of the Roman government...

[Calimera II]

~ Tacitus wrote about the execution by Pontius Pilate. We know Jesus existed then.

You mean the part where for some reason Tacitus didn't know what Pontius Pilate's title was? Yeah... There's reason to believe that's accurate...

"He didn't know what Jesus' title was"
"Everything he wrote was shit"

:/

[Dyakovo]

You mean the part where for some reason Tacitus didn't know what Pontius Pilate's title was? Yeah... There's reason to believe that's accurate...

"He didn't know what Jesus' title was"
"Everything he wrote was shit"

:/

Yup, because that was my argument.

[Calimera II]

"He didn't know what Jesus' title was"
"Everything he wrote was shit"

:/

Yup, because that was my argument.

Well, it sounded that way. Of course, I did exaggerate. But I don't think it's fair reasoning to say that it isn't accurate at all only because he didn't mention/know Pontius Pilate's title.

[Dyakovo]

Yup, because that was my argument.

Well, it sounded that way. Of course, I did exaggerate. But I don't think it's fair reasoning to say that it isn't accurate at all only because he didn't mention/know Pontius Pilate's title.

The fact that, in that part of the passage, a renowned historian and Roman senator gave Pontius Pilate the wrong title is an indication that that part was added later, by one who lacked Tacitus' knowledge.

[The Alma Mater]

Yup, because that was my argument.

Well, it sounded that way. Of course, I did exaggerate. But I don't think it's fair reasoning to say that it isn't accurate at all only because he didn't mention/know Pontius Pilate's title.

Let me clarify his argument.
1. We do not actually have Tacitus original writings. We have documents that claim to be copies of copies of copies of those writings, many of them made after 1000 CE.

2. Copies made and stored by christian clergy.

3. Which exactly at the place where Jesus is mentioned contain a strange error.

Does not make them fake, but some doubt is certainly understandable.

[Distruzio]

So... you lack belief. You demand evidence to initiate belief. But you have no idea what evidence would be acceptable to you?

If you have no idea what would convince you then how can you know that evidence provided already is false? After all, the bible can be used as a source but you have, in the past, dismissed any argument on any subject because, in your estimation, the bible is not a valid source for anything.

I know exactly what evidence would be acceptable. Evidence that is verifiable.
The bible is not a valid source because nothing in it is verifiable.

What evidence that is verifiable is acceptable? Verifiable by what means? What specifically arw you talking about, Dy?

Fair enough. But, again, but verifiable how?

[Calimera II]

Well, it sounded that way. Of course, I did exaggerate. But I don't think it's fair reasoning to say that it isn't accurate at all only because he didn't mention/know Pontius Pilate's title.

Let me clarify his argument.
1. We do not actually have Tacitus original writings. We have documents that claim to be copies of copies of copies of those writings, many of them made after 1000 CE.

2. Copies made and stored by christian clergy.

3. Which exactly at the place where Jesus is mentioned contain a strange error.

Does not make them fake, but some doubt is certainly understandable.

Most historians say that it's true that Tacitus wrote it. I am not an historian, but it must have a reason.

3 - I doubt it is the only error in the book, Historians often make little mistakes. And we musn't forget that the wikipedia page I gave as source, is about Jesus and not about other things he wrote in that book.

[Twilight Imperium]

Fair enough. But, again, but verifiable how?

verify, v.
to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination, research, or comparison

Many of the claims in the bible are not verifiable. Others have been disproven. Yet others have been corroborated. What evidence did you find compelling?

[Distruzio]

Fair enough. But, again, but verifiable how?

verify, v.
to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination, research, or comparison

Many of the claims in the bible are not verifiable. Others have been disproven. Yet others have been corroborated. What evidence did you find compelling?

Argumentation.

[Twilight Imperium]

verify, v.
to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination, research, or comparison

Many of the claims in the bible are not verifiable. Others have been disproven. Yet others have been corroborated. What evidence did you find compelling?

Argumentation.

Oh come on, you're not even trying. What arguments? From whom? On what basis?

[Dyakovo]

Argumentation.

Oh come on, you're not even trying. What arguments? From whom? On what basis?

The Orthodox Church. Anything they say he automatically accepts as being true.

[Calimera II]

Oh come on, you're not even trying. What arguments? From whom? On what basis?

The Orthodox Church. Anything they say he automatically accepts as being true.

Well, I also think that everything what Pope Francis says is true...

[Mostrov]

Not to mention the detail that, for some reason, Tacitus was apparently unaware of what Pilate's title was... Despite being an acclaimed historian and a a member of the Roman government...

Now, if anything this seems like misrepresenting and skewing the whole matter. Why exactly was he 'reputable'? It certainly isn't academic consensus that he was an unbiased author.

What exactly was his error that was so unusual for the texts of the time to be considered a medieval pious fraud?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Not to mention the detail that, for some reason, Tacitus was apparently unaware of what Pilate's title was... Despite being an acclaimed historian and a a member of the Roman government...

Now, if anything this seems like misrepresenting and skewing the whole matter. Why exactly was he 'reputable'? It certainly isn't academic consensus that he was an unbiased author.
What exactly was his error that was so unusual for the texts of the time to be considered a medieval pious fraud?

He is touted as reputable by christians, because he is the only source anywhere near the relevant time period that mentions that jesus fellow at all.

However, the academic consensus is that what remains of his writing is partly falsified, partly exaggeration, and partly propaganda all mixed into the repeatedly translated original texts. The earliest copy of his book that exists is from the 11th century, incomplete, and was translated at least twice, both by christian monks. Taking it as a trustworthy and unbiased source is pure stupidity.

[Gairvuu]

Are we not our own gods?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Are we not our own gods?

I think a lot of people worship a different kind of god.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Are we not our own gods?

I think a lot of people worship a different kind of god.

YUP

[Immoren]

Are we not our own gods?

We don't get our powers and sustenance from Faith, so no.

[Mostrov]

He is touted as reputable by christians, because he is the only source anywhere near the relevant time period that mentions that jesus fellow at all.

However, the academic consensus is that what remains of his writing is partly falsified, partly exaggeration, and partly propaganda all mixed into the repeatedly translated original texts. The earliest copy of his book that exists is from the 11th century, incomplete, and was translated at least twice, both by christian monks. Taking it as a trustworthy and unbiased source is pure stupidity.

So for all of your claims of academic consensus do you have any citation? Or that Tacitus writing is 'falsified, exaggerated or propaganda'? Or indeed that it is mistranslated? I take it you are highly familiar with classical study and that most classical works which have been 'translated' are similar subject to bias from monks?

Presumably his writings on the Roman Emperors are similarly so? I take it that Nero, Augustus, Vespasian etc. are 'fictional' figures. Or that the writing was preserved in anything but copies of the original Latin.

You state something in direct contradiction to what I was responding too, that the original writing was reliable save for this particular passage.
My question was directed as to why that particular passage is seen as unreliable, given that the main person (Paul R. Eddy) who points towards the access of Tacitus of having governmental records as also holding the position that it was evidence of Christs existence.
This whole talk of 'academic consensus' seems to be quite selective.

[Gairvuu]

Are we not our own gods?

We don't get our powers and sustenance from Faith, so no.

*off topic* what if I'm a narcissistic cleric?

Wouldn't it be possible to claim that our faith is our determination, our authority stems from our power and our power comes, in part, from our determination?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

He is touted as reputable by christians, because he is the only source anywhere near the relevant time period that mentions that jesus fellow at all.

However, the academic consensus is that what remains of his writing is partly falsified, partly exaggeration, and partly propaganda all mixed into the repeatedly translated original texts. The earliest copy of his book that exists is from the 11th century, incomplete, and was translated at least twice, both by christian monks. Taking it as a trustworthy and unbiased source is pure stupidity.

So for all of your claims of academic consensus do you have any citation? Or that Tacitus writing is 'falsified, exaggerated or propaganda'? Or indeed that it is mistranslated? I take it you are highly familiar with classical study and that most classical works which have been 'translated' are similar subject to bias from monks?

Presumably his writings on the Roman Emperors are similarly so? I take it that Nero, Augustus, Vespasian etc. are 'fictional' figures. Or that the writing was preserved in anything but copies of the original Latin.

You state something in direct contradiction to what I was responding too, that the original writing was reliable save for this particular passage.
My question was directed as to why that particular passage is seen as unreliable, given that the main person (Paul R. Eddy) who points towards the access of Tacitus of having governmental records as also holding the position that it was evidence of Christs existence.
This whole talk of 'academic consensus' seems to be quite selective.

My mistake, I did not read carefully enough. I thought your were talking about josephus, not tacitus.

Some of that still applies, and the time gap between the estimated original writing and the time in question is even larger for tacitus' annals. There are obvious alterations in the texts, like someone tried to use white-out on them, but they don't appear to be very significant in those cases.

The more important thing for tacitus is how small the actual reference is.
[/box]"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin ..."[/box]
That's it, and the word christus has been repeatedly verified to be defaced from the original, which was chrestiani. Definitely not enough to rest the case of a religion on.

[Salandriagado]

So in there anyone here who'll be willing to provide proof for god's existence? And you can do this for any god

What is proof youll accept as valid?

Proof: A finite sequence of statements, each of which is either an axiom that we both agree to be true, or is a logical consequence of the previous statements.

[Benuty]

Yes God exist or how would energy come to be. Has energy always been there how would the universe come to existence. Every thing must have a Creator.

Who created God then ?

And energy came from Atum-Ra's masturbation. Or from Audhumla licking ice. Or perhaps even from the Octavo

The Creator obviously.