You seem to be imagining that somewhere they had perfect records of everything that happened in the government, and that every single incident that happened would be perfectly traceable as if there were a comprehensive searchable database.

I'm sorry, but your criticism is basically empty.

The Romans did in fact keep scrupulous and very detailed records of everything that happened in this period and those records were extant when Cassius was writing (they were later lost).

It's becoming increasingly clear that I'm wasting my time. I consider it grade-school level reading comprehension that Cassius does not mean that Augustus introduced the tax twice. He's writing a history of the period. If he meant that, he would say it explicitly, discuss when and why the tax had been introduced the first time, why it had been abolished, etc, not mention it in passing.

Even if I were to concede the point that Cassius might have meant the law happened twice in the reign of Augustus (which I'm certainly not doing), we'd be barely any closer to what Habermas wants to argue. He's proposing a whole cascade of extremely improbable events, none of which we have any evidence of whatsoever, in order to preserve a Gospel story also backed by no supporting evidence whatsoever. At least he's an inerrantist, so he has no choice but to build this house of cards. What your excuse is, I'm not sure. It's not like Christianity would collapse if you admitted that this tale of Luke's is unlikely.

Yup. I'm sure that absolutely everything was written down and that there was nothing lost between the time of writing these things and Cassius' attempt to put the pieces together. And I'm sure that Cassius had access to the entire database of information and the resources to find every detail that he desired. So that when he saw a reference to something that happened earlier, I'm sure he had all the tools necessary to locate that reference and dig it up, and that he would have undoubtedly found it useful to cross-reference every single utterance that he attempted to discuss.

Because that's really how history works, of course.

Your reading of history is horrendous. Look at how many assumptions you are required to make in order for you to uphold your position. If this were all true, why wouldn't he have simply copied down every single document and call that a history? You don't think that a historian's job involves some editorial decisions about what to include and what not to include? You really think that they have the time to get into every little detail about every little thing that happened?

Have you even read any history? Do you have any parallel writing to the thing you're claiming should have happened? A history in which EVERY SINGLE DETAIL was included down to the smallest comment? Is there no part of you that can admit that what you're claiming should have happened is basically an impossibility?

Right. He's proposing a whole bunch of improbable events by pointing to statements made by a historian. The improbable events are really coming from you, in your attempt to reconstruct history in a very specific way by assuming that because certain information isn't cross-referenced down to the smallest detail that clearly nothing like that could possibly have happened.

I make no excuse. I simply point to your basic historical illiteracy and illiteracy with regards to the words I've written. I've already admitted that the tale, taken in absolute literal terms, is unlikely.

So what's your excuse for continuing to pound on the strawman? What is it that's so dangerous to your intellectual well-being that you have to hold to the most absurd reading of history in order to defend your position?

I'm giving up, but I'm just amazed at your estimations of what will and won't appear in history. The inheritance tax was one of the Leges Iuliae, there were like 5 of these laws in the entire Augustine reign. It was a major undertaking that caused significant backlash and would have required significant bureaucratic effort to enforce. We have a lot of good sources from the Augustine period. The idea that Augustus had previously introduced, then reversed, an identical law and that no mention of this has come down to history beyond some vague allusion in Cassius is completely inconceivable. I mean, this is a poker forum. What do you think the chances are that happened? I would happily bet my entire net worth at 10,000 to 1 on that it didn't.

Edit: From Wikipedia on the subject:

You seriously believe it is possible this had happened before under Augustus, been reversed, and no record has come down of the first time, nor did anyone (bar Cassius in the vaguest of terms) bother mentioning the second time that it WAS the second time? Your resistance to inference is of a degree that is hard to fathom.

You may have difficulty fathoming it, but your lack of ability is not my problem. At the end of the day, we have Cassius making the claim and you rejecting it. Between the two of you, who is more credible on the subject?

Cassius doesn't claim it at all. He says the law was introduced at some unspecified point in Rome's (traditionally held to be) 750-year history before that.

Please describe the "it" in your sentence.

That the law had existed before in the reign of Augustus. I feel like youre being deliberately obtuse.

While Roman records are of course by no means perfect, they are very good. They were sticklers for documenting legal proceedings, administration, politics, economics and military matters. They also had a very functional postal system and contract law. They also had a very strong tradition for history as an academic discipline, and it is generally believed that this is a solid source in its own right (due to the rich source material their historians would have had available to them).

We have millions of Roman recovered records and it is also (and probably also as a result of this) one of the most studied civilizations in history. In general we can assume that modern mainstream Roman history is very solid.

To put it into perspective you're probably into the late 1800s / early 1900s before similar levels of documentation become the custom in the "western world", and you can even argue that some administrative aspects of documenting that the Romans took for granted for 500+ years weren't common in our cultures until after the 50s.

I don't doubt any of these things.

Here's the statement again:

I see no reason to do take either of the following paths:

1) Assume that the reference is just made up for no apparent reason.

or

2a) Assume that he necessarily had access to all the required documentation to elaborate the entire incident in full detail.
2b) Assume that he would have found it necessary to make an entire section regarding the incident (especially if it was a failed attempt).
(To quote ChrisV: "If he meant that Augustus had introduced this tax before, he would have noted it earlier in his history, and would make specific reference to this earlier event when discussing the 6CE tax." -- It too much to assume that he would necessarily have taken all of these steps and would absolutely have made this specific reference.)

Cassius was writing this history in 200 AD-ish. I don't think that he would find it absolutely necessary to write down every single detail of every single reference that was made throughout the history he was writing. Therefore, I see no reason to accept that this type of tax hadn't been levied previously, as suggested by the statement.

Once again, I will state that I don't believe that there was an incident in which the ENTIRE COUNTRY was asked to do this type of thing. But that doesn't negate the idea that it might have been tried locally at some point, especially if it was in an area that was conquered relatively recently. I'm not even making the argument that this was absolutely the same incident as referenced in the book of Luke. I'm just saying that it seems too much to assume that there's no way the two pieces of narrative can reasonably be reconciled.

I feel the same way about you. All you're doing is repeating that you are rejecting what the historian wrote.

This is false; it is a point of established criticism that religious bias exists among the extant sources supporting the existence of the historical Jesus. Part of this criticism forms part of the Christ Myth Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory). Notwithstanding general scholastic agreement that Jesus likely existed, the conclusion that religious bias is an "absolute failure when it comes to debating the subject" is simply wrong, most centrally because of methodological impropriety engendered by such bias.

Can you provide the basis for your conclusion that "more evidence" exists for "kings and rulers" than there is "for Jesus"? Which kings and rulers? All of them? Some of them? Have you weighed all of the scholarship and sources for these "kings and rulers" and compared the balance to the evidence for Jesus' existence? If so, please provide us with your calculations and derived conclusions.

While chastising ecriture d'adulte for failing to provide concrete sources and data, you blindly engage in the same folly. Ecriture d'adulte was referring generally to the level of uncertainty over the existence of the historical Jesus. A quick search finds various respected sources questioning his existence (e.g., https://richarddawkins.net/2014/12/d...oesnt-add-up/; http://strangenotions.com/questionin...city-of-jesus/). Make sure you're not excepting yourself from the standard you demand of others.

How? Ecriture d'adulte said there are only a "handful of literary" sources. How does that equate to "tons" of evidence? How are you defining "tons"? If it is in any way related to your arithmetic regarding the dollar value of a philosophy minor's assignment paper weight in gold, you've probably erred...badly.

Context, my dear. Context. It is fairly clear that ecriture d'adulte is referring to surviving relics and other such items when stating "contemporary archaeology" (a contrary interpretation, which is what your quote above implies, does not make much sense because the field of "contemporary archaeology" studies only the past couple of centuries or so). Your mention of "specific archaeological findings" bolsters ecriture d'adulte's skepticism: I'm not aware of any "specific" archaeological findings pertaining directly to Jesus, leaving us with a few scattered writings that were unified centuries later, not to mention heavily edited by councils of ecclesiastics and sovereign writ.

You spoken of "tons of evidence", yet provided no authority. You've made comparisons about how much evidence exists for "kings and rulers" relative to Jesus, yet provided no authority. You've equated "handful of literary" sources with "tons of evidence", also providing no authority. In essence, you've replied to ecriture d'adulte in bad faith, showing no charity or good will, and making serious errors of logic. Do you feel that your existential identity is being threatened when someone asserts a polemic that is contrary to your ideological comfort zone?

Again, please provide us with the "tons of evidence" that exists for Jesus' historicity. Also provide us with an explanation as to why the amount of this evidence is appropriately quantified via the word "tons". Also provide us with how you came to the conclusion that evidence for "kings and rulers" outweighs evidence for Jesus' historicity. Again, which kings and rulers? All of them? Just the cool ones? Nothing you've stated so far is persuasive or objectively sound. In other words, your opinion appears to be...weak. I'll give you another "chance" to explain yourself now.

The quote from ecriture d'adulte you're referring to is the following: "If you think what I am saying is wrong, you can just say why. I'm not claiming its correct just because I am saying it."

Reflect for a moment on your response to ecriture d'adulte here: he/she made a general point about the relative dearth of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, to which you responded that there was "tons of evidence", without providing any support as to the existence of this "tons of evidence". You then continued to make bare assertions about how "more" evidence exists for "kings and rulers" (so "more" than "tons of evidence"? What would that be- "super" tons of evidence?), while still deconstructing ecriture d'adulte's overall point as to skepticism over Jesus' historicity.

Apparently, you argumentative strategy is to anoint yourself as the "giver of chances", assume the validity of the contrarian polemic relative to your interlocutor, and demand exacting testament over certain ambiguous points in hopes that such ambiguity will be sufficient in cracking the credibility and integrity of your interlocutor's position. In a nutshell, you aim to derail. Not too cool, Mickey .

His posts were just fine- most of the evidence for the historicity of Jesus comes from various narratives about his life, all of which have been the subject of serious scholarly question. Your failure to appreciate religious bias pursuant to these sources is quite telling as far as the credibility of your position is concerned.

Can you provide evidence as to why you believe that Pythagoras' historicity is less established than that of Jesus'? You're making a "distinction between different historical figures", and I would like to see your reasoning process on this matter. Mind you, even if you are correct (which is questionable), you're not making any kind of argument here that contradicts the thrust of ecriture d'adulte's position, that being that the prevailing evidence for Jesus' historicity leaves room for reasonable doubt.

This...is horrific logic. So the existence of Maenads is sufficient reason to at least "accept the plausibility" of the existence of the god Dionysus? The existence of followers of Saint Christopher is sufficient reason to at least "accept the plausibility" of his existence, even though the evidence is objectively unconvincing? Really? See, kids...this is where having a formal education really pays off.

Although it is true that it is less likely for a nonexistent person to gain a fervent following than an existing one, that statement is fairly meaningless when we are discussing a situation where such existence is itself in question. If we were instead just randomly picking historical figures out from an encyclopedia, your argument would be worthwhile.

This is false. First, a generation is roughly defined, at present, to be about 22.5 years (http://www.ancestry.com.au/learn/lea...lib_Generation). 2,000 years ago, it would likely have been significantly less because parents bore children earlier. Jesus is generally believed to have died around year 30, and the earliest parts of the New Testament (Paul's epistles) were composed in the decade of the 50s (http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossr...hegospels.html), 20+ years later. Moreover, the first Gospel (Mark) is believed to have been composed around year 70, at least 40 years after the death of Jesus. Keep in mind that the lifespan of humans 2,000 years ago was significantly less than what it is today.

This is misleading at best: Josephus may have been Jesus' "contemporary", but his date of birth is generally set at 7-10 years after Jesus' death. Given the relative short lifespan of individuals during that period, by the time Josephus reached 20, most, if not all, adults alive during Jesus' life had likely passed.

It should also be noted that Pythagoras' time was 500-600 years prior to that of Jesus, and unlike the latter, Pythagoras was not touted as a messiah fulfilling prophecy (thus making it less likely that he would develop such a wide following). This further weakens your overall conclusion pertaining to a comparison between Jesus' and Pythogaras' historicity.

Let me know if you have any questions. As you stated above: whether you choose to engage is up to you.

*Yawn* It's so funny that you cite the Jesus myth theory and then point out how the general scholastic agreement is that the Jesus myth theory is false. It's like you can't help but affirm my position.

Well, first off, I take it that you choose not to pursue the other points- they remain there whenever you wish to engage them.

Secondly, I cited the Christ myth theory to counter your "absolute failure when it comes to debating the subject" statement. Scholarship on the subject has recognized a distinct religious bias relative to the methodologies used by ecclesiastics. This directly counters your "absolute failure" statement, so I'm not sure where you're getting that I have "affirmed" your position on this note (it's more of the opposite). Remember that "failure of reading comprehension" you mentioned a while back? Yeah....

Lulz..."yawn"...I guess getting your entire polemic refuted tires you out. No big D.

The historicity of Jesus is rarely disputed in mainstream history, any argument to that effect is wrong. The historical method of many Jesus scholars have often been questioned in regards to bias, but that is not the same thing.

It is a shame to argue in a way that conflates the two (regardless if a concession is given half-way in), because it is an interesting issue. The core of the issue is not unique to the Jesus story / myth either, but something that applies to large portions of history as a field.

I remember an entire chapter of of a university textbook in history being dedicated to a discussion if history was science, interestingly it concluded that it was not.

It's an "absolute failure" because almost no historians take the Jesus Myth seriously. They don't take it seriously because it doesn't conform to academic standards of historical analysis. In other words, the Jesus myth is comprised of failed arguments.

In general, one should recognize that the tactic of citing a failed argument in order to bolster one's claims is probably a losing tactic.

You're misunderstanding the critique here: I'm not arguing that the Christ myth theory is valid. I'm pointing out that established scholarship on the historicity of Jesus has recognized a distinct religious bias as far as ecclesiastical methodology is concerned, meaning that certain religious sources in support of Jesus' historicity are disputed or outright rejected by academics in the field. Thus, it is definitely not an "absolute failure when it comes to debating the subject" in pointing out that religious bias sometimes makes for flawed arguments. Fail at reading comprehension for you, but win for conflating two separate arguments to escape admitting error.

I wholeheartedly agree. See my paragraph directly above this quote to see this principle in action as applied to your polemic.

P.S. I've assumed the mantle from ecriture d'adulte regarding the debate. Your continuing failure to address my other refutations of your responses to ecriture d'adulte suggests a refusal to retort to that arc of the dispute, and potentially a concession of it. Now, if you're truly too tired to do so (i.e., "yawn"), I understand that your failure is a result of exhaustion. I will excuse your failure on these grounds if you ask me nicely. =D

I have not argued that the historicity of Jesus is often disputed in "mainstream history", but rather that there exist such disputes by reputable academics. The argument here is that it is a recognized fact that religious bias has adversely affected the methodologies used by ecclesiastics in providing support for Jesus' historicity (meaning that Aaron W's "absolute failure" quote is wrong). Try not to conflate two distinct positions and then cover that conflation by referencing the distinction post-conflation.

This...is filler, not to mention an exercise in irony regarding conflation (see above). Improve.

Cool story, bro.

AaronW's quote is completely fine. He stated that arguing "Those were Christian historians, so they shouldn't count" (paraphrased) is a failure. You interpreted those words to imply that he argued that a discussion on bias shouldn't count.

That's a rather unfair interpretation.

It's not an unfair interpretation at all- his quote implied that critiquing historicity arguments from ecclesiastics (e.g., Christians) is utterly worthless (i.e., an "absolute failure"). This is false: it is an established fact in mainstream scholarship on the subject that religious bias has adversely affected the methodologies employed in formulating some of their historicity arguments. Therefore, it is nowhere near an "absolute failure" to point this bias out.

Your paraphrase of Aaron W.'s quote is inaccurate. My contention is that his "absolute" discounting of arguments regarding religious bias is simply unreasonable, and not that all historicity arguments from Christians should be automatically discarded. Try not to pervert the facts so you can avoid admitting your errors- it's a fairly petty strategy.

Of course it is unfair, you aren't even saying the same thing as he did. You are arguing as if he has stated that a discussion on bias is without merit, which he has not done.

For a claim of bias in historical interpretation to have merit you usually have to show at least one of towards things. 1. Ignoring contradiction towards other sources 2. Arbitrary weighing of sources 3. Unfair application of method when interpreting a source. You can't just state that someone is biased because they are a Christian / Non-Christian, you have to show where they (presumably) went wrong.

It is not unfair at all because his statement implied that critiquing ecclesiastical historicity arguments on the basis of religious bias is an "absolute failure". This is false. You've incorrectly paraphrased Aaron W. so as to make your argument stick, something I cannot allow to pass without incident.

Also, you're continuing to misinterpret my polemic here, something that appears to be a pattern for you. The point is that Aaron W.'s "absolute failure" statement is unreasonable, given that religious bias in ecclesiastical historicity arguments for Jesus is a widely recognized fact in the academic community on this subject (i.e., because they are Christian theologians, there is a greater likelihood that they will engage in those recognized methodological errors). That has nothing to do with the idea that arguments from Christians about Jesus' historicity should be "automatically discounted". Conflation and wilful misinterpretation are thy enemy here.

A trend isn't evidence of individual action. If we start discounting historians based on their religion or lack thereof, we would move discourse of history into being a discourse on theology. You actually risk affirming bias as a credible method by allowing historians to discredit anyone whose personal convictions they do not like.

Sure, you could hypothetically discredit schools of historic thought (house of cards principle), which has often been done in history as an academic discipline. But it would still have to be done on pointing out actual errors, not hypothesizing that they could be there based on creed.

Never said that a trend is evidence of individual action- that is a straw man. The argument is that religious bias in ecclesiastical historicity arguments is firmly established in scholarship, and that claiming it is an "absolute failure" as to referencing such bias is simply unreasonable. Moreover, no one ever said anything about discounting historians based on their "religion or lack thereof". I'm making a general statement about ecclesiastical bias, and not commenting on particular works or historians.

This isn't a "hypothesis": it is established scholarship that ecclesiastical bias exists. I agree that applying this across the board to any ecclesiastical historicity argument is absurd, but that's not remotely my position here. Rather, it is simply that such bias has been recognized, and that implying that it is an "absolute failure" to consider it is unreasonable.