Kent Hovind - Subornation of False Muster?


Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:
<snip>

All history is hearsay, moron. By your standards, we cannot even be
sure Leonardo da Vinci, G. Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great ever
existed.

wrong. much of history is eyewitness testimony or testimony of the
character him/herself. hearsay is when somebody is merely repeating the
claims of another.

And how do you _know_ much of history is eyewitness testimony?
Concentrate on roman times, since that's the issue at hand. How do you
actually _know_ "De Bello Gallico" (for instance) is "eyewitness
testimony"?

How do you _know_ Plinius' account of the Vesuvius eruption in 79 is
eyewitness testimony? You only have Plinius' word for it. Hearsay. Not
to Plinius, mind you, but to you.

I don't even go into the details of the German campaigns of Germanicus
in 15-17 a.D. or the Battle in the Teutoburger Wald. That's hearsay
even to Tacitus.

the people who wrote these things claimed to witness them, and the
documents can be dated to the time when the events took place. not that
this is "proof," but its much much more than what we have for jesus.

AFAIK, many of the documents date from _much_ later. The earliest (and
only) version of the annales dates from the IXth century. Besides, you
just tacitly admitted it's hearsay. People claim just about anything
and forgeries abound.

the historical evidence for jesus is more like the historical evidence
for hercules, rather than the historical evidence for caesar.

All you have on G. Julius Caesar and Alexander the great is hearsay of
people claiming to be eye-witnesses.

if you disagree, how about we both start presenting individual (and
independent) pieces of evidence that build the cases for these two
characters, and we let the lists speak for themselves?

Nope. You provide the evidence for once, and i'll discredit it. Should
not be that hard.

Tell you what, you prove to me that Verginius Rufus existed, famed
commander of Germania Superior in 64 a.D. You'll find him in Plinius
Epistulae, Tacitus Historiae and Cassius Dio.

After all, we're talking history, not archeology or numismatics.

whats the matter, cant deal with julius caesar anymore? if caesar never
existed, who is this?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=julius%20caesar%20bust&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wi

Good question. Who is he? How do you know any of those busts actually
_is_ G. Julius Caesar? Just because people believe he is? Do you have a
single contemporary source stating that any of these guys actually _is_
Julius Caesar?

we also have coins with a similar-looking guy and the coins say right
on them who they are depicting. the coins can be dated by being
associated with carbon-datable (or some other non-historical datable)
material.

Cite?

dumbass, had you clicked the link i supplied below, youd see the coins.
instead, you decided to ignore it and call it "hearsay."

The only link had "modern-replica" in it. That's hardly contemporary.
My denarius with the head of Titus Tatius is an original.

So that does not say anything, moron.

what are those coins "modern replicas" of? how did they model them?


Besides, since Gaius Julius is a very common name, it's likely that
_some_ guy of that name existed, but none of the actual fairytales
attributed to him is proven by such a coin. Remember we're talking
about the guy who (aleldgedly) claimed to descent from Venus himself.
I've got a coin (a Denarius from republican times) carrying the
inscription "Titus Tatius Sabinus", does that mean the stories in "Ab
Urbe Condita" is true? (Hint: it isn't).

"gaius julius caesar" isnt a common name.

Says the guy who thinks Gaius Plinius Secundus Minor is a contemporary
of G. Julius Caesar. Besides, the title Caesar (meaning "head with
hair") appears in conjunction with _many_ people. The german "Kaiser"
is actually the same title derived directly.

where did i say pliny the younger is a contemporary of julius caesar?
just more lies on your part. you were talking about verginius rufus.
amazing how you can dishonestly switch back and forth so easily.

by the way, the title "caesar" does not appear on anyone who is not a
very important leader. that goes for the german "kaiser" as well.


The tribe of the Iulii is _very_ large and romans weren't exactly very
original with first names. Applying your reasoning concerning Yeshua,
that does not exactly say anything. Without hearsay there's no reason
to actually assume "caesar" is anything but a title. In fact it's used
exclusively as such from the Flavian dynasty onwards, but that's just
hearsay.

of course caesar is a title. a title for the emperor of rome.


Fairy tales.

we can also infer from the large number of depictions of this guy that
he was probably a very important person - somebody who would have been
noticed and written about.

Inference is not evidence. You're applying double standards.

um, no.

Um, yes. And not only that, you do so _very_ disingenously. I'll give
you a hint: check out Marcus Tullius Cicero.

thus, we can search historical literature
for names that match the names on the coins and see just what people
were saying about this guy.

http://www.ancient-times.com/info/modern_replicas.html

Hearsay. None of it can be proven to be actual eyewitness testimony.
All documents relating to that guy are from a much later date and
probably forged to support political aims. Remember the whole exercise
was intended to _show_ that all of history is hearsay, so it's nice of
you to admit it (even if it's only tacitly.

maybe you ought to actually click the link.

You mean the link with "modern_replica's" in it? And i'm actually
supposed to take that as some kind of evidence?

how can we have "modern replicas" if there arent originals? if there
werent originals, they wouldnt be replicas. do try to visit a museum
sometime.


C'mon... You can't actually be _that_ stoopid. Besides, coins are dated
using the same hearsay you're attempting to pass off as "eyewitness
testimony". That's the reason archeologist _love_ coins. They provide
dates, since usually very little datable material remains.

coins are either directly dated themselves (since they were written
on), or they are directly dated by associating them with a physical
object with which they were found. "hearsay," as you keep incorrectly
using, is never used.


Wood and cloth rots, you know...

<snip irrelevant stuff on Jesus>

we simply dont have one single well-attested-to biographical detail of
this person's life, other than he was crucified under the reign of
pontius pilate. and really, that means nothing at all, given the number
of revolts and riots that led to crucifixions in the 1st century, and
the commonness of the name "yeshua" at the time.

Comparable to the names "Gaius Iulius" in roman times. So probably some
guy of that name existed, but you've got no actual proof that any of
the exploits attributed to him are actually true. If you leave of the
epithet "Christus" (as mentioned by Tacitus), i can leave of the
cognomen "Caesar", since many people, who weren't related to JC carried
the same title.

how common was "gaius julius caesar?" and how is "christus" the same as
"jesus christ?" "christus" is a name, not a title - and "christ" is a
title. and how long after the alleged events of the gospels did tacitus
write? oh yeah, 90 YEARS.

That's a bit rich coming from a guy who claims Gaius Plinius Secundus
Minor is a contemporary of G. Iulius Caesar, ignoring the latter was a
close friend of P. Cornelius Tacitus (see G. Plinius Secundus Minor,
Epistulae, VIII-7, for instance) when one JC wasn't even born when the
other was murdered.

except i never claimed that dumb***. YOU talked about verginius rufus,
and i responded that pliny mentions him. stop lying.


Gaius Julius is a _very_ common name and without hearsay there's no
reason to assume "caesar" is any more than a title, which it actually
was starting with the Flavian dynasty. Correction, since Sulpicius
Galba. We've got _tons_ of evidence (literally) to back it up, too.
Visit the Forum Romanum for some examples.

indeed, caesar was a title, for the emperor of rome.


<snip irrelevant stuff on Abe Lincoln>
Sidetracking noted.

<restore dishonestly snipped perfect analogy to the evidence we have
for jesus>

abraham lincoln died in 1865, but imagine if absolutely no record of
him existed prior to 1910. not a picture, not a biography, not a
personal letter, NOTHING. imagine that there were only a few
"authoritative" biographies of abraham lincoln, and ALL of them
attributed miracles to him and contradicted each other in ways that
makes the stories impossible when taken together. imagine that a
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION threw out most of the biographies because they
didnt conform to doctrine, but the ones they kept still had
unreconciliable contradictions. imagine that historians in 1950
commented on this RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION as it grew in influence. what
might those historians say about it? would they mention abraham
lincoln? from where would they get their info on him?

its not hard to see why you snipped this. it is exactly the same
situation you have for jesus. now, instead of either showing some real
evidence that jesus existed, or dropping the claim that we know he did,
you keep going off on irrelevant tangents of roman history. youre
applying the same stupid canard that apologists use when they say we
have more evidence for jesus than we do for julius caesar. the only
difference is, an apologist doesnt put replies to his bull*** out in
public, whereas here, anybody can read your idiocy and demonstrate
facts that prove you wrong.

.

Loading