tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post8059390760116228479..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: Does Tacitus Justify Belief that Jesus was Crucified?Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-206751017184091902007-11-06T21:00:00.000-05:002007-11-06T21:00:00.000-05:00This book is definitely not about presenting two s...This book is definitely not about presenting two sides fairly and arguing about why the Christian side is more reasonable. This book is about winning souls.<BR/><BR/>For an example of the tone of the book, at one point they actually say something like "Suppose your company has an outing at the ball park and you meet Tom, who you know is a skeptic and a logical person. Here is how you might start something with him." This is a handbook for refuting the lay skeptic you meet at your work lunchroom.<BR/><BR/>In their defense they do make it clear who their audience is. But even still, they should confess the weaknesses in their own position and at least try to address them. They do this sometimes but not always, as is the case with Tacitus and Josephus.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-77732059499220031182007-11-06T14:44:00.000-05:002007-11-06T14:44:00.000-05:00That type of name-dropping is disconcerting to me....That type of name-dropping is disconcerting to me. If they are writing to convince a skeptic, they would <I>never</I> avoid the controversies, as they would look uninformed. Any one of us is familiar with the problems of Josephus and Tactitus—basic Skeptic 101. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, they are not writing to skeptics. But why write to those who are already convinced? To what credit is it to write to a person who believes Jesus was crucified, buried and physically resurrected and manage to persuade them Jesus was crucified, buried and physically resurrected? In fact, they do a bit of disservice (in my opinion) for two reasons:<BR/><BR/>1) Some day some naïve Christian who is questioning his/her beliefs, and unknowingly is taking the first steps of deconversion comes across their book, and they look disingenuous by not addressing these real concerns. It does not push a deconvert back toward belief!<BR/><BR/>2) Some Christian will someday be faced by a skeptic, and when they bring up these points, will be completely unable to respond to even a semi-informed non-believer. <BR/><BR/>Why should Christianity so fear the truth? Better to say, “Here is one side; here is the other. This is why we think Christianity proposes the better solution between the two claims.”DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-47889482980786748972007-11-06T11:22:00.000-05:002007-11-06T11:22:00.000-05:00Name drop all the way. Very little details are of...Name drop all the way. Very little details are offered. The same is true for Josephus. Even the Christian argument that it is rife with insertions isn't mentioned, let alone that the whole thing could be forgery.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-39035721232326379502007-11-05T13:00:00.000-05:002007-11-05T13:00:00.000-05:00Do Habermas or Licona even address the problems of...Do Habermas or Licona even address the problems of Tacitus (lack of confirmation, use of title, rather than name, even <I>that</I> is mis-spelled, lack of Pliny knowing Christianity) or do they perform the standard of act of name-dropping Tacitus and Josephus without presenting the difficulties?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com