"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 about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[159][160][161][162][122] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[24] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine."
Granted that is from Wikipedia but I don't have time for anything else. And we covered this the other day when you claimed Tacitus had been proven a fraud, discovered he had not, and then pretended you had been talking about Josephus all along.
"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 about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[159][160][161][162][122] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[24] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine."
Granted that is from Wikipedia but I don't have time for anything else. And we covered this the other day when you claimed Tacitus had been proven a fraud, discovered he had not, and then pretended you had been talking about Josephus all along.
2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event doesn't count as evidence. Do you know the definition of evidence? Somebody already provided you the dictionary of the meaning of evidence here in this very thread.
You can't just make stuff up and change the definition of words as you see fit.
2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event doesn't count as evidence. Do you know the definition of evidence? Somebody already provided you the dictionary of the meaning of evidence here in this very thread.
You can't just make stuff up and change the definition of words as you see fit.
I didn't change anything and again this is ground we have already covered. The definition stated that something needed to be widely considered true to be considered evidence. 2.1 billion believers is pretty wide, and that is not even counting a single person from any other religious group who may believe Jesus existed.
2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event doesn't count as evidence. Do you know the definition of evidence? Somebody already provided you the dictionary of the meaning of evidence here in this very thread.
You can't just make stuff up and change the definition of words as you see fit.
I didn't change anything and again this is ground we have already covered. The definition stated that something needed to be widely considered true to be considered evidence. 2.1 billion believers is pretty wide, and that is not even counting a single person from any other religious group who may believe Jesus existed.
2.1 billion believers 2000 years after the event. How is that evidence? Are 2.1 billion people privy to some archeological information that the rest of us aren't?
2.1 billion believers 2000 years after the event. How is that evidence? Are 2.1 billion people privy to some archeological information that the rest of us aren't?
Unfortunately it is the best evidence that has survived for those 2000 years. And while it may be slim and slight, it does not equal zero.
2.1 billion believers 2000 years after the event. How is that evidence? Are 2.1 billion people privy to some archeological information that the rest of us aren't?
Unfortunately it is the best evidence that has survived for those 2000 years. And while it may be slim and slight, it does not equal zero.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one then.
Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven to be true by earlier evidence (truths) and demonstrates the broadening of the truth of a case. And the collection of evidence is in fact the act of determining; what is evidence. Whereas, the word evidence carries with it the presumption of it (the evidence) being seen as true, the where and how it fits; its relationship in and to the other evidence. In short, it goes from determining what is evidence, to evidence is determined; determining truth, to truth determined. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
believing to be true isn't the only criteria.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were in fact proven to be true by earlier evidence (truths) and demonstrates the broadening of the truth of a case. And the collection of evidence is in fact the act of determining; what is evidence. Whereas, the word evidence carries with it the presumption of it (the evidence) being seen as true, the where and how it fits; its relationship in and to the other evidence. In short, it goes from determining what is evidence, to evidence is determined; determining truth, to truth determined. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
believing to be true isn't the only criteria.
But no source from antiquity is going to hold up to a modern standard. There is scarce evidence, but there is not zero evidence.
Comments
1) Tacitus does count as evidence.
2) It is not likely that Tacitus is a forgery.
"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 about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[159][160][161][162][122] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[24] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine."
Granted that is from Wikipedia but I don't have time for anything else. And we covered this the other day when you claimed Tacitus had been proven a fraud, discovered he had not, and then pretended you had been talking about Josephus all along.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event doesn't count as evidence. Do you know the definition of evidence? Somebody already provided you the dictionary of the meaning of evidence here in this very thread.
You can't just make stuff up and change the definition of words as you see fit.
I didn't change anything and again this is ground we have already covered. The definition stated that something needed to be widely considered true to be considered evidence. 2.1 billion believers is pretty wide, and that is not even counting a single person from any other religious group who may believe Jesus existed.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
2.1 billion believers 2000 years after the event. How is that evidence? Are 2.1 billion people privy to some archeological information that the rest of us aren't?
Unfortunately it is the best evidence that has survived for those 2000 years. And while it may be slim and slight, it does not equal zero.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one then.
believing to be true isn't the only criteria.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
But no source from antiquity is going to hold up to a modern standard. There is scarce evidence, but there is not zero evidence.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."