Your list of historians is inaccurate. Many of them were not living or working at the time of Christ's ministry. Either you are ignorant of history or you are purposely ignoring it.""
Your reliance on misstatement, misdirection, and outright deceit has become a character trait with you, Greg. Frankly, I am getting tired of your outright use of distortions and lies to pretend you are making points.
I said very clearly:
"I repeated to you the compelling list of historians (from Remsberg) and remarked on the incredible fact that none of them were aware of events which are purported to be unique in all of history and widely observed."
And Remsberg's links stated unambiguously:
"The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:"
So your pretense at having made both a valid point and a deserved insult has only served to expose your smallness in argument and your meanness in character.
_____________________________
"Anachronistic expectations imposed on ancient historians who would have had no reason or even opportunity to record the events of life of Jesus, is more an excuse than a reason to deny the very modest historical claims that I will once again, repeat."
That is unmitigated nonsense! The expectations of and for historians then and now was to record and interpret noteworthy events. And the point is...they DID record them! They recorded and recorded, and then recorded over and again. It is just that they did not record your "miracle events"! That is the problem!
__________________________________
As to your comments on Tacitus. ONE fragile Christian interpolation is insufficient to answer the overwhelming historical silence. I notice that your "Lane" is fond of making grand and sweeping statements without attaching any evidence. In my reply to your bare assertion I will quote Remsberg. Note that he gives FOURTEEN points to consider as rationales for his belief that Tacitus wrote no such thing.
Tacitus
(This section was repaired on October 4, 2002.)
"In July, 64 A.D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary. Modern editions of the "Annals" of Tacitus contain the following passage in reference to this:
"Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed to those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man" (Annals, Book XV, sec. 44). This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:
1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7. At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.
9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.
Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation. Whatever may be said of the remainder of this passage, this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative. In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence, if genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not write this sentence."
Other entries from encyclopedia and qualified commentators are fairly consistent in agreement...at least where there is an expectation of objectivity.
___________________________________
"The book of Acts is dated by many scholars before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and most likely before the death of Paul. Paul's letters are dated in the early to mid 50's so you are at least a hundred years off on your dates."
I placed the possibilities of Acts between 65 AD and 130 AD as per encyclopedias quoted here:
Message 19882160
So your statement is complete rubbish. Again, you are adopting a policy of deceit, false reference, and false attribution in order to pretend to points. It is a quick way to lose respect, Greg...
”To say Paul only deals with the resurrection is also a factual error. The resurrection is the crowning event that if true, verifies all the claims of Christ, and if false, renders everything else that Jesus claimed and did, meaningless. If you are prepared to grant the resurrection, then what is the problem with the other, certainly lesser miracles”
You must be off your head. Why would I grant the resurrection OR any other "miracles" when I believe those are myths common to many cultures—and not historical events? |
