"You did not include the qualifier with the list that you posted. I can only imagine why. No, your omission made it seem that these historians were contemporary witnesses of these events and then never recorded them"
That is a lie. This is from the same post (the one to which you were responding with your deception and your insults--remember?)
"On the other hand, I have shown several reasons why the historicity of Jesus (the God-Man) ought to be considered in the strongest possible doubt. 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.
Message 19882160
My remark does not require any additional qualification. It is not my list. Remsberg lists the historians and he qualifies the time frame they relate to. I referenced the "compelling list of historians from Remsberg". That is what my statement was about. That is what my statement said. That is my qualification. So I will qualify my original response to your unjustified attack and your deliberate insult: You may be merely incredibly stupid. Satisfied with the qualification, now?
"Neither did you mention the fact that Tacitus who was no friend of Christians does indeed mention the founder of the Christian sect"
I said that he heard "nothing about miracles, resurrections, or the like". That was the topic I was on. When you introduced the argument about the Christian interpolation into his annals, I responded to that.
"So who is engaging in selective "misstatement, misdirection, and outright deceit"?"
Your present weaseling and attempts to mislead provide the simple answer.
____________________________
"Actually what I was referring to was this statement"
"Added to that, we have the equally incredible event that several decades later (in all probability 150 years) certain people considered these events important enough to write voluminously about them!"
You just keep weaseling. That remark was (duh) a reference to the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In the next section of my post I responded to your direct quote on Acts and I elaborated with several encyclopedia links to that issue. Now (this may be really difficult for you to wrap your mind around) but why would you think I was referring to Acts with the first remark? Firstly, it completely contradicts what I DID say about Acts in my response to the QUERY about Acts, and, secondly... my reference of the first part was a response to THIS query--NOT the query about Acts:
"Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death."(Craig)
...which all happened right here!
siliconinvestor.com
So my characterization of you is once more revealed as well considered!
_______________________________
"However the first part of my statement is correct and destroys you assertion that the events of the life death and resurrection of Jesus were not recorded until "later (in all probability 150 years)" As I said, that means you think they were not written until 180 A.D. which is outside even the latest date you allowed "I placed the possibilities of Acts between 65 AD and 130 AD" Make up your mind will you?"
This is possibly one of the most stupid and self revealing contortions I have ever seen! You see Greg...it IS making up ones mind to place the gospels at possibly 150 AD and "Acts" at possibly 65 to possibly 130 AD. You see, Greg, there are thousands of chronologies devised for the books of the bible. They were all written at different times. It is quite expected that people will acknowledge that difference!
Now please stop playing games and get on with matters. |
