Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-08-2021, 02:20 AM)Free Wrote: But the one thing that no one can adequately dispute is that there is factual historical references which clearly and strongly indicate the existence of a historical person named Jesus, who was acknowledged as some kind of a Christ, and was executed by Pilate. This one theme shows up constantly in Roman, Christian, and Jewish ancient works.

Occam's Razor is a red herring.
Explanations for historical things are as complex as they need to be, or actually were.
It's bullshit.

You failed to support your (ungrammatical) "there is factual historical references which clearly and strongly indicate the existence of a historical person named Jesus, who was acknowledged as some kind of a Christ, and was executed by Pilate." with any facts. (You also have no idea when Jesus was acknowledged as a "christ", and in fact if he were at the time he was executed, there would be no reason why Peter has to explain to the Jews in Acts what they actually did). Every single one of your claimed "works" can be easily debunked.
I fart in your general direction.  Angel
http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-08-2021, 02:44 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-08-2021, 02:20 AM)Free Wrote: But the one thing that no one can adequately dispute is that there is factual historical references which clearly and strongly indicate the existence of a historical person named Jesus, who was acknowledged as some kind of a Christ, and was executed by Pilate. This one theme shows up constantly in Roman, Christian, and Jewish ancient works.

Occam's Razor is a red herring.

That's just a bullshit attempt at waving a magic wand. But guess what, Bucky Boy?

It's still there and there's nothing you can do about it.


Quote:You failed to support your (ungrammatical) "there is factual historical references which clearly and strongly indicate the existence of a historical person named Jesus, who was acknowledged as some kind of a Christ, and was executed by Pilate." with any facts. (You also have no idea when Jesus was acknowledged as a "christ", and in fact if he were at the time he was executed, there would be no reason why Peter has to explain to the Jews in Acts what they actually did). Every single one of your claimed "works" can be easily debunked.

That support has been displayed in this thread ad naseam and no one here can adequately dispute it.

In short, you've disappointed me.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-08-2021, 02:48 AM)Free Wrote: That's just a bullshit attempt at waving a magic wand. But guess what, Bucky Boy?

It's still there and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's only there because YOU attempted hand waving by employing it, with your unsupported assertions.

Quote:That support has been displayed in this thread ad naseam and no one here can adequately dispute it.

In short, you've disappointed me.

The support is nothing but your opinion. It was all more than adequately disputed here.
Disappointing someone who can't write a correct English sentence is of no import to me.
But it's good to see you true to your patronizing ways.
Period. Dance
I fart in your general direction.  Angel
http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Quote:But the one thing that no one can adequately dispute is that there is factual historical references which clearly and strongly indicate the existence of a historical person named Jesus, who was acknowledged as some kind of a Christ, and was executed by Pilate. This one theme shows up constantly in Roman, Christian, and Jewish ancient works.


Free, we have been through this many times.  Even if what now appears in the only extant manuscript of Annales was written by P. Cornelius Tacitus and was not a later xtian interpolation - or at least some "helpful" spelling correction of the word Chrestianos by a later copyist - both of which I doubt but for the moment it does not matter - the simple fact remains that Annales is not a "primary source." Tacitus lived long after some later xhristards set the story of their godboy in the early first century.  Tacitus further never wrote about any asswipe named "jesus."  He may have written "christos" (but more probably chrestos ) but not "jesus."  Neither did his good pal, Pliny or his acquaintance Suetonius. No Roman mentions any "jesus" until Origen tells us that Celsus did in the late 2d century.  That is a FACT.

By historical standards Annales cannot even be considered a secondary or tertiary source as Tacitus never mentions where he got his information from.  You can, and have, speculated at length on where he could have gotten such information but it remains mere speculation.  You could speculate that he shit golden denarii on the floor of the forum, too, but it would remain speculation as we have no such coins with Tacitus' shit on them. Tacitus is little more than a gossip at this point. If he lived today he'd be all over Facebook with his bullshit!

 The sources derive from the mindless enthusiasm of later xhristard writers seeking to promote their godboy into a big cheese.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • mordant
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-08-2021, 03:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-08-2021, 02:48 AM)Free Wrote: That's just a bullshit attempt at waving a magic wand. But guess what, Bucky Boy?

It's still there and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's only there because YOU attempted hand waving by employing it, with your unsupported assertions.
 

The fact that it exists has nothing to do with me. I didn't put the evidence there, and your assertions against it without evidence automatically get dismissed without evidence.

And there's nothing you can do about that either, other than suck it up and move along.

Quote:
Quote:That support has been displayed in this thread ad naseam and no one here can adequately dispute it.

In short, you've disappointed me.

The support is nothing but your opinion. It was all more than adequately disputed here.
Disappointing someone who can't write a correct English sentence is of no import to me.
But it's good to see you true to your patronizing ways.
Period. Dance

Like I said before the fact that the evidence exists and is supported by other numerous sources is not a matter of opinion, but rather it's factually accurate.

Denying it doesn't impress anyone any more than a rabid Trump supporter denying that Biden won the election when his hands are empty of evidence. All it does it make you look stupid.

So either bring some real contrary evidence to the table and not mere speculation otherwise you're farting into the fucking wind.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Repeating a lie 100 times does not make it true.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-10-2021, 02:04 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Repeating a lie 100 times does not make it true.

Then stop repeating it.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Nice try but your evidence remains thin...to say the most for it.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-10-2021, 02:09 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Nice try but your evidence remains thin...to say the most for it.

Regardless of your opinion on the evidence, it exists nonetheless.

And the only thing you've ever thrown at it is assertion. You've never actually presented any evidence to invalidate it.

And therefore it still stands as evidence.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-10-2021, 01:59 AM)Free Wrote: It's only there because YOU attempted hand waving by employing it, with your unsupported assertions.

The fact that it exists has nothing to do with me. I didn't put the evidence there, and your assertions against it without evidence automatically get dismissed without evidence.

And there's nothing you can do about that either, other than suck it up and move along.

Yeah, you do desperately hope we would move along.
Whatever you're talking about is so weak, you can't even bring yourself to say what exactly it is you're talking about,
because you know yourself it's weak. You're no specialist. You're not necessary here. You're the one that ought to move on.
Bye bye. Period. Dance
I fart in your general direction.  Angel
http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Just because you will not listen to anything which disputes your determination to defend the existence of the godboy does not mean the evidence is not there.

We've been through it and through it and you simply do not want to hear it.

But your pal "jesus" does not make an appearance until the 2d century.... and that is a serious blow to his "existence."

But fictional characters can be created anytime.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-10-2021, 02:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 01:59 AM)Free Wrote: It's only there because YOU attempted hand waving by employing it, with your unsupported assertions.

The fact that it exists has nothing to do with me. I didn't put the evidence there, and your assertions against it without evidence automatically get dismissed without evidence.

And there's nothing you can do about that either, other than suck it up and move along.

Yeah, you do desperately hope we would move along.
Whatever you're talking about is so weak, you can't even bring yourself to say what exactly it is you're talking about,
because you know yourself it's weak. You're no specialist. You're not necessary here. You're the one that ought to move on.
Bye bye. Period. Dance

Still waiting for you to present the counter evidence to Tacitus, for example.

Bennett waiting for ten tears. Let's see it.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
[Image: hqdefault.jpg]


Tampered manuscript....7 centuries after Tacitus' death.

BTW, it says "Chrestianos"  later edited to "Christianos" by some undoubtedly well meaning forger...er, scribe.  But at no point does it mention any Iesous as there was no "J" in Latin in the second century.

This is what you hang your hat on?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-10-2021, 04:51 AM)Minimalist Wrote: [Image: hqdefault.jpg]


Tampered manuscript....7 centuries after Tacitus' death.

BTW, it says "Chrestianos"  later edited to "Christianos" by some undoubtedly well meaning forger...er, scribe.  But at no point does it mention any Iesous as there was no "J" in Latin in the second century.

This is what you hang your hat on?


Now prove it was tampered for the purpose of deception rather than corrected for the purpose of ... well ... correction.

And then when you're done with that, prove that Chrestus and Chrestians were never used as substitutes for Christ and Christians as the following ancient documents makes clear that they were.

Lactantius - Divine Institutes, Book IV Ch. VII: 

"...for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus."

Tertullian - Apology Ch.III:  

"But 'Christian,' as far as its etymology goes, is derived from 'anointing.' And even when it is incorrectly pronounced by you 'Chrestian' (for not even is your acquaintance with the name accurate), it is formed from 'sweetness' or 'kindness."

Clement - Stromata IV: 

"Now those who have believed in Christ both are and are called Chrestians ..." 

Justin Martyr - Apology 1, ch. 4: 

"... so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are Chrestians ..."

You see Min ... you must speculate with no evidence that the Tacitus text was tampered with for the purpose of deception while ignoring the rest of it that clearly mentioned that Christ was crucified by Pilate, and also ignoring the evidence presented above. You have no actual evidence to support your speculation, while I have tons of evidence to support the far greater probability that Tacitus was indeed talking about Christ and the Christians.

And that is exactly why you can't win this argument and why I keep telling you "it's all about the argument." Whoever has the best evidence wins, and you have none.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-11-2021, 02:51 AM)Free Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 04:51 AM)Minimalist Wrote: [Image: hqdefault.jpg]


Tampered manuscript....7 centuries after Tacitus' death.

BTW, it says "Chrestianos"  later edited to "Christianos" by some undoubtedly well meaning forger...er, scribe.  But at no point does it mention any Iesous as there was no "J" in Latin in the second century.

This is what you hang your hat on?


Now prove it was tampered for the purpose of deception rather than corrected for the purpose of ... well ... correction.

And then when you're done with that, prove that Chrestus and Chrestians were never used as substitutes for Christ and Christians as the following ancient documents makes clear that they were.

Lactantius - Divine Institutes, Book IV Ch. VII: 

"...for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus."

Tertullian - Apology Ch.III:  

"But 'Christian,' as far as its etymology goes, is derived from 'anointing.' And even when it is incorrectly pronounced by you 'Chrestian' (for not even is your acquaintance with the name accurate), it is formed from 'sweetness' or 'kindness."

Clement - Stromata IV: 

"Now those who have believed in Christ both are and are called Chrestians ..." 

Justin Martyr - Apology 1, ch. 4: 

"... so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are Chrestians ..."

You see Min ... you must speculate with no evidence that the Tacitus text was tampered with for the purpose of deception while ignoring the rest of it that clearly mentioned that Christ was crucified by Pilate, and also ignoring the evidence presented above. You have no actual evidence to support your speculation, while I have tons of evidence to support the far greater probability that Tacitus was indeed talking about Christ and the Christians.

And that is exactly why you can't win this argument.

All of which have absolutely nothing to do with, nor do they say anything about an historical "Jesus".
There is no argument there to win. If there were Christians, it's about nothing except what some people believed ... not about who actually lived. It's faith based speculation. There were those whp believed in Mithra, a Zoroastrian divinity. Does the fact there were thiose who believed in him prove he existed ? Does the fact there were those who believed in the sun god Ra, mean he existed in Egypt ? So there were Christians. It proves nothing. Of course there were Christians. It proves nothing.
I fart in your general direction.  Angel
http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
What part of "undoubtedly well-meaning forger...er scribe" escaped your notice?  We are talking 7-8 centuries after Tacitus died when some unknown asswipe got around to giving  Tacitus a FTFY in modern parlance.

It DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER WHY IT WAS CHANGED.  What matters is that the original said "chrestianos."  And, although you persist in denying it, we have evidence that the term was in use in Rome itself before this jesus shit was invented.  Suetonius wrote about Chrestus leading some sort of disturbance in Rome during the reign of Claudius.  Your boy, at least according to the writers who invented him, was long dead by then.  Suetonius never heard of jesus.  Pliny's xtians sign a hymn to "Christ" in the translation.  We don't know what it said originally, but it does not say fucking jesus.  As far as what the holy propagandists you cite have to say you are right.  I do not give a flying fuck what they have to say.  No more than I do political marketeers in this century.  They were selling a bullshit story to gullible fools.

This is what your alleged professional historians - who I think are far more interested in keeping their cushy jobs at religiously based institutions are in some sort of "consensus" about, huh?  They should be ashamed of themselves if they were really interested in history but their concern is theology.  And theology is shit.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-11-2021, 03:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 02:51 AM)Free Wrote:
(10-10-2021, 04:51 AM)Minimalist Wrote: [Image: hqdefault.jpg]


Tampered manuscript....7 centuries after Tacitus' death.

BTW, it says "Chrestianos"  later edited to "Christianos" by some undoubtedly well meaning forger...er, scribe.  But at no point does it mention any Iesous as there was no "J" in Latin in the second century.

This is what you hang your hat on?


Now prove it was tampered for the purpose of deception rather than corrected for the purpose of ... well ... correction.

And then when you're done with that, prove that Chrestus and Chrestians were never used as substitutes for Christ and Christians as the following ancient documents makes clear that they were.

Lactantius - Divine Institutes, Book IV Ch. VII: 

"...for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus."

Tertullian - Apology Ch.III:  

"But 'Christian,' as far as its etymology goes, is derived from 'anointing.' And even when it is incorrectly pronounced by you 'Chrestian' (for not even is your acquaintance with the name accurate), it is formed from 'sweetness' or 'kindness."

Clement - Stromata IV: 

"Now those who have believed in Christ both are and are called Chrestians ..." 

Justin Martyr - Apology 1, ch. 4: 

"... so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are Chrestians ..."

You see Min ... you must speculate with no evidence that the Tacitus text was tampered with for the purpose of deception while ignoring the rest of it that clearly mentioned that Christ was crucified by Pilate, and also ignoring the evidence presented above. You have no actual evidence to support your speculation, while I have tons of evidence to support the far greater probability that Tacitus was indeed talking about Christ and the Christians.

And that is exactly why you can't win this argument.

All of which have absolutely nothing to do with, nor do they say anything about an historical "Jesus".
There is no argument there to win. If there were Christians, it's about nothing except what some people believed ... not about who actually lived. It's faith based speculation. There were those whp believed in Mithra, a Zoroastrian divinity. Does the fact there were thiose who believed in him prove he existed ? Does the fact there were those who believed in the sun god Ra, mean he existed in Egypt ? So there were Christians. It proves nothing. Of course there were Christians. It proves nothing.

Yet Tacitus was writing Roman history, not Christian history. It was not a matter of any faith based belief system. We all know he had access to Roman records, as he mentioned them ad naseam throughout his works.

Therefore your argument doesn't even apply here.

And I am not trying to prove that Jesus existed, but only that the argument for his existence as a mere man is far better than the arguments for total myth.

And your argument sucks because you got nothing but speculation.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-11-2021, 03:04 AM)Free Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 03:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 02:51 AM)Free Wrote: Now prove it was tampered for the purpose of deception rather than corrected for the purpose of ... well ... correction.

And then when you're done with that, prove that Chrestus and Chrestians were never used as substitutes for Christ and Christians as the following ancient documents makes clear that they were.

Lactantius - Divine Institutes, Book IV Ch. VII: 

"...for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus."

Tertullian - Apology Ch.III:  

"But 'Christian,' as far as its etymology goes, is derived from 'anointing.' And even when it is incorrectly pronounced by you 'Chrestian' (for not even is your acquaintance with the name accurate), it is formed from 'sweetness' or 'kindness."

Clement - Stromata IV: 

"Now those who have believed in Christ both are and are called Chrestians ..." 

Justin Martyr - Apology 1, ch. 4: 

"... so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are Chrestians ..."

You see Min ... you must speculate with no evidence that the Tacitus text was tampered with for the purpose of deception while ignoring the rest of it that clearly mentioned that Christ was crucified by Pilate, and also ignoring the evidence presented above. You have no actual evidence to support your speculation, while I have tons of evidence to support the far greater probability that Tacitus was indeed talking about Christ and the Christians.

And that is exactly why you can't win this argument.

All of which have absolutely nothing to do with, nor do they say anything about an historical "Jesus".
There is no argument there to win. If there were Christians, it's about nothing except what some people believed ... not about who actually lived. It's faith based speculation. There were those whp believed in Mithra, a Zoroastrian divinity. Does the fact there were thiose who believed in him prove he existed ? Does the fact there were those who believed in the sun god Ra, mean he existed in Egypt ? So there were Christians. It proves nothing. Of course there were Christians. It proves nothing.

Yet Tacitus was writing Roman history, not Christian history. It was not a matter of any faith based belief system. We all know he had access to Roman records, as he mentioned them ad naseam throughout his works.

Therefore your argument doesn't even apply here.

And I am not trying to prove that Jesus existed, but only that the argument for his existence as a mere man is far better than the arguments for total myth.

And your argument sucks because you got nothing but speculation.

You need to show us the Roman records. You failed. It is you that is speculating.
Show us the records he had access to that are not based on the beliefs of believers.
EVERY ONE of the above relate to beliefs of believers ... not one to facts.
I fart in your general direction.  Angel
http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-11-2021, 03:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 03:04 AM)Free Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 03:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: All of which have absolutely nothing to do with, nor do they say anything about an historical "Jesus".
There is no argument there to win. If there were Christians, it's about nothing except what some people believed ... not about who actually lived. It's faith based speculation. There were those whp believed in Mithra, a Zoroastrian divinity. Does the fact there were thiose who believed in him prove he existed ? Does the fact there were those who believed in the sun god Ra, mean he existed in Egypt ? So there were Christians. It proves nothing. Of course there were Christians. It proves nothing.

Yet Tacitus was writing Roman history, not Christian history. It was not a matter of any faith based belief system. We all know he had access to Roman records, as he mentioned them ad naseam throughout his works.

Therefore your argument doesn't even apply here.

And I am not trying to prove that Jesus existed, but only that the argument for his existence as a mere man is far better than the arguments for total myth.

And your argument sucks because you got nothing but speculation.

You need to show us the Roman records. You failed. It is you that is speculating.
Show us the records he has access to that are not based on the beliefs of believers.

Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Tacitus- Annals: 

15.38: A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, 

So ... you know ... there's that.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-11-2021, 03:21 AM)Free Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 03:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 03:04 AM)Free Wrote: Yet Tacitus was writing Roman history, not Christian history. It was not a matter of any faith based belief system. We all know he had access to Roman records, as he mentioned them ad naseam throughout his works.

Therefore your argument doesn't even apply here.

And I am not trying to prove that Jesus existed, but only that the argument for his existence as a mere man is far better than the arguments for total myth.

And your argument sucks because you got nothing but speculation.

You need to show us the Roman records. You failed. It is you that is speculating.
Show us the records he has access to that are not based on the beliefs of believers.

Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Tacitus- Annals: 

15.38: A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, 

So ... you know ... there's that.

There's nothing.
The fact that there were believers proves nothing.
If they had blamed the Vestal Virgins for the fire, would that prove Vesta was real ?
LOL
I fart in your general direction.  Angel
http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-11-2021, 03:21 AM)Free Wrote: Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Unless you can show there is no way Tacitus could have gleaned that information from the Christians; you have nothing.
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-11-2021, 04:06 AM)Inkubus Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 03:21 AM)Free Wrote: Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Unless you can show there is no way Tacitus could have gleaned that information from the Christians; you have nothing.

I don't have to show you that at all. If you think he gleaned it from the Christians, show your evidence to support it. I presented evidence to support the position he got it from previously written Roman historical records.

Now it's your turn.

Where is it?
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(10-11-2021, 03:24 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 03:21 AM)Free Wrote:
(10-11-2021, 03:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You need to show us the Roman records. You failed. It is you that is speculating.
Show us the records he has access to that are not based on the beliefs of believers.

Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Tacitus- Annals: 

15.38: A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, 

So ... you know ... there's that.

There's nothing.
The fact that there were believers proves nothing.
If they had blamed the Vestal Virgins for the fire, would that prove Vesta was real ?
LOL

Sorry, but you don't get to wave your magic wand and make that go away, Bucky Boy.

It prefaces all that follows in regards to the Great Fires of Rome which includes Christ and the Christians, and it clearly shows that Tacitus was sourcing previously written Roman historical records.

Try harder.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)