"I am sad to say this, but anyone who denies that the Holocaust occurred, is both ignoring, and ignorant of, history. Likewise anyone who denies that Christianity is based in actual history, places themselves so far to the extreme that they make the far left look Conservative."
As you know, I have always been very critical of anyone who minimizes the holocaust. So one wonders why you imply by association that I deny the holocaust? That is an ignorant way to "argue".
"Disallowing any Christian witness of Christian history while accepting all other historians at face value is clearly applying a double standard. Only someone with a clear agenda of denial would do such a thing."
It would be a double standard, yes. Historians should not be judged on their religion, but on their credentials and on their objectivity.
"His dismissal of Tacitus as a genuine amounts to exactly that. Does he have any concrete evidence for such an interpolation beyond that which is biased and circumstantial?"
He did not claim the interpolation was a result of a conspiracy. Thus it is wrong to accuse him of claiming that.
As to the evidence: I believe he put forward FOURTEEN points to justify his position. You were unable or unwilling to answer even one of those points. Thus, one may assume that the argument is carried.
"Only the most biased and ignorant wannabe historian would deny.."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.""
There were many Jews named "Jesus" and there may have been a particular person that Christianity mythologized. But there is no evidence of the crucifixion, as related by Christian writers much much later. No historical account of genocide at His birth, or marvellous events during His life. If He truly brought Lazarus back from the dead (to mention just one of many extraordinary events imputed to His name), every doctor and every historian would have written of it. Years and years later people did write all sorts of contradictory and ludicrous accounts of miracles, and such. Why didn't they write about them in 36 AD? Because nothing was happening that was extraordinary--nothing at all. |
