100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Are Atheists Open for a Chat? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
And that is fine, why make such a big fuss over it? You don't believe it, that's fine. That's your decision. We've established you don't believe it, now why can't we move on to the next topic? What's so hard about that? Why continue to patronize someone for their beliefs when you don't believe? Why not say you don't believe it and move on. Okay from now on, Cowboy, I will just tell it to you strait. I will only tell you the hard core facts. The New Testament is a complete fabrication. None of it is true in the slightest. Jesus is a fictional character. All of scripture is metaphorical and symbolic and myth. These are the facts Cowboy. If you don't believe the facts, that is your choice. We are just trying to bring to you the light of truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Because Jesus is our savior, Jesus is whom will judge each and everyone of us. Jesus sacrificed himself in the fact that he knew by giving us the new covenant between man and God some people of this earth would be against him. Would crucify him because they would not believe. But Jesus himself in that exact sense wasn't a "sacrificial lamb" for with the coming of the new covenant there was NO NEED FOR SACRIFICING ANYTHING FOR FORGIVENESS. He brought an end to that and is why his death is seen as the sacrificial lamb for God. That's not "Sharing" Cowboy. Where in any of that did you say, "I believe,..." You didn't. You stated everything as though it is some sort of absolute fact that must be accepted. Jesus is not our savior. How's that? Jesus will not judge anyone. Jesus is DEAD. How's that? In fact, I personally don't BELIEVE anything that you've stated above. None of it. I don't believe it either. Why? Because Jesus does not and never has ever existed. That's a fact. How's that? You might want to tell these people that. Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus: "About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 ) ------------------------- TACITUS-Gentile Historian Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Annals 15 -44 ” Mischievous Superstition”. Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was “a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition”. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as supersititon but the practice of Jesus’ followers. A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." Origen and Philopon, De. opif. mund. II21 "And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ...” Origen Against Celsus The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). References There are many Jewish writings that show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre. So significant is Jesus in man's history that the Encyclopedia Britannica has 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space than was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napolean Bonaparte. Why would there be so much material on a man who was never born? Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the testimony of the many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth: These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that is fine, why make such a big fuss over it? You don't believe it, that's fine. That's your decision. We've established you don't believe it, now why can't we move on to the next topic? What's so hard about that? Why continue to patronize someone for their beliefs when you don't believe? Why not say you don't believe it and move on. Okay from now on, Cowboy, I will just tell it to you strait. I will only tell you the hard core facts. The New Testament is a complete fabrication. None of it is true in the slightest. Jesus is a fictional character. All of scripture is metaphorical and symbolic and myth. These are the facts Cowboy. If you don't believe the facts, that is your choice. We are just trying to bring to you the light of truth. If Jesus is fictional, please explain these external sources of Jesus please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/29/11 01:31 PM
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Because Jesus is our savior, Jesus is whom will judge each and everyone of us. Jesus sacrificed himself in the fact that he knew by giving us the new covenant between man and God some people of this earth would be against him. Would crucify him because they would not believe. But Jesus himself in that exact sense wasn't a "sacrificial lamb" for with the coming of the new covenant there was NO NEED FOR SACRIFICING ANYTHING FOR FORGIVENESS. He brought an end to that and is why his death is seen as the sacrificial lamb for God. That's not "Sharing" Cowboy. Where in any of that did you say, "I believe,..." You didn't. You stated everything as though it is some sort of absolute fact that must be accepted. Jesus is not our savior. How's that? Jesus will not judge anyone. Jesus is DEAD. How's that? In fact, I personally don't BELIEVE anything that you've stated above. None of it. I don't believe it either. Why? Because Jesus does not and never has ever existed. That's a fact. How's that? You might want to tell these people that. Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus: "About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 ) ------------------------- TACITUS-Gentile Historian Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Annals 15 -44 ” Mischievous Superstition”. Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was “a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition”. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as supersititon but the practice of Jesus’ followers. A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible Its all lies. I'm sorry to break it to you Cowboy but if that is all of your proof, you are in sad shape. Besides, I thought this was not an argument. Now you are presenting your proof? Are you renouncing the truth? Are you denying the facts? I told you before the truth about Josephus. That was just a pen name. Josephus probably never was a real person. Even if he was, he did not write that stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: And that is fine, why make such a big fuss over it? You don't believe it, that's fine. That's your decision. We've established you don't believe it, now why can't we move on to the next topic? What's so hard about that? Why continue to patronize someone for their beliefs when you don't believe? Why not say you don't believe it and move on. Move on? We're trying to.  We don't believe in your faith-based views. Happy now? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: If Jesus is fictional, please explain these external sources of Jesus please. She doesn't need to. Because there is no external sources of the miraculous things that are being claimed about the fictional Jesus in the new testament. If you can find external sources of some guy who was crucified so be it. That doesn't mean that that person was the same fictional character that the authors of the New Testament made up. We've already addressed this before Cowboy. I could claim that Albert Einstein was born of a virgin, cured the sick and ressurected from the dead too. You can clearly find evidence that Albert Einstein lived. But could you find any evidence of the Character that I claimed he was? No you could not. Therefore the Albert Einstein that I created was totally fictional! The very same thing applies to the biblical Jesus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/29/11 01:30 PM
|
|
Cowboy found that site where he can cut and paste stuff that supposedly supports his views.
I can do that too, till the cows come home, but this is not an argument. This is a discussion where we just say what we believe, and we state it as a fact. It is a fact that Calpurnius Piso was the guy who wrote all of the Josephus history. Josephus did not write that. Now if Josephus really did actually exist, he was probably murdered and his identity could have been stolen. But the official history about him was a lie and cannot be proven. Calpurnius Piso may have been walking around pretending to be Josephus for a while. There is plenty of documentation that the Piso family did exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Because Jesus is our savior, Jesus is whom will judge each and everyone of us. Jesus sacrificed himself in the fact that he knew by giving us the new covenant between man and God some people of this earth would be against him. Would crucify him because they would not believe. But Jesus himself in that exact sense wasn't a "sacrificial lamb" for with the coming of the new covenant there was NO NEED FOR SACRIFICING ANYTHING FOR FORGIVENESS. He brought an end to that and is why his death is seen as the sacrificial lamb for God. That's not "Sharing" Cowboy. Where in any of that did you say, "I believe,..." You didn't. You stated everything as though it is some sort of absolute fact that must be accepted. Jesus is not our savior. How's that? Jesus will not judge anyone. Jesus is DEAD. How's that? In fact, I personally don't BELIEVE anything that you've stated above. None of it. I don't believe it either. Why? Because Jesus does not and never has ever existed. That's a fact. How's that? You might want to tell these people that. Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus: "About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 ) ------------------------- TACITUS-Gentile Historian Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Annals 15 -44 ” Mischievous Superstition”. Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was “a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition”. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as supersititon but the practice of Jesus’ followers. A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible Its all lies. I'm sorry to break it to you Cowboy but if that is all of your proof, you are in sad shape. Besides, I thought this was not an argument. Now you are presenting your proof? Are you renouncing the truth? Are you denying the facts? I told you before the truth about Josephus. That was just a pen name. Josephus never was a real person. Is Cowboy trying to "prove" something now? I thought he dismissed the concept of "proof". Didn't he claim that all of science is merely "faith-based" and therefore on equal footing with his "faith-based" belief in the bible? If he's now acknowledging that "evidence" has merit he'll have to recant his views that all of science is merely "faith-based". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes he has rejected my evidence quickly calling it "lies." Then he says that we are not arguing, we are just "discussing." Then he presents his evidence. Now he wants to argue and present evidence. So now, hopefully, he knows the difference between "discussion" and "argument." Now maybe he has learned something. Have you Cowboy? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Know ye not that everything ye think ye know is probably a lie?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy found that site where he can cut and paste stuff that supposedly supports his views. I can do that too, till the cows come home, but this is not an argument. This is a discussion where we just say what we believe, and we state it as a fact. It is a fact that Calpurnius Piso was the guy who wrote all of the Josephus history. Josephus did not write that. Now if Josephus really did actually exist, he was probably murdered and his identity could have been stolen. But the official history about him was a lie and cannot be proven. Calpurnius Piso may have been walking around pretending to be Josephus for a while. There is plenty of documentation that the Piso family did exist. Well, the bottom line in all of this is "Who cares?" Cowboy's ultimate and only goal is to try to convince us that we must accept Jesus as our 'savor' lest his supposedly all-loving and all-merciful God will be unmercifully cruel to us.  Clearly such a picture of a "God" is far from righteous or holy anyway. It's an extremely demonic picture of a demon god. And clearly it cannot be 'proven'. If if could be proven it would have been proven by theologians already. All credible theologies confess that religion cannot be proven and is necessarily "faith-based". So the only question is whether we want to place our "faith" in a religion that has a dastardly unrighteous God. My answer is, no. I see no value in such a sick demented concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes he has rejected my evidence quickly calling it "lies." Then he says that we are not arguing, we are just "discussing." Then he presents his evidence. Now he wants to argue and present evidence. So now, hopefully, he knows the difference between "discussion" and "argument." Now maybe he has learned something. Have you Cowboy? I have done no such thing. Ok just for the sake of the argument, will you please show some FACTS that Jesus never existed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes he has rejected my evidence quickly calling it "lies." Then he says that we are not arguing, we are just "discussing." Then he presents his evidence. Now he wants to argue and present evidence. So now, hopefully, he knows the difference between "discussion" and "argument." Now maybe he has learned something. Have you Cowboy? Don't kid yourself. He's already confessed to being a servant of the lord out to spread the "word" of God. He's not here to discuss anything that doesn't align with that goal. Besides, 'evidence' supposedly has 'merit' when he presents it, but when anyone else presents it, he reject it as being nothing more than "faith". Ok just for the sake of the argument, will you please show some FACTS that Jesus never existed? That would be impossible to do. However, what is possible is to show where any an all 'evidence' that might be claimed to show that Jesus had actually existed is highly questionable. Just because some 'evidence' might be found that appears to potentially coincide with some of the things that are claimed about Jesus doesn't mean that the person associated with that evidence was indeed "Jesus". For example, from what I hear people were being nailed to poles quite often back in those days. So just because we find historical 'evidence' that someone had been nailed to a pole, that doesn't in any way suggest that it was the man in question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/29/11 02:52 PM
|
|
Yes he has rejected my evidence quickly calling it "lies." Then he says that we are not arguing, we are just "discussing." Then he presents his evidence. Now he wants to argue and present evidence. So now, hopefully, he knows the difference between "discussion" and "argument." Now maybe he has learned something. Have you Cowboy? I have done no such thing. Ok just for the sake of the argument, will you please show some FACTS that Jesus never existed? You did call my evidence Lies. And you did that without having even examined or questioned my source. You just responded by saying "lies." This was in another thread about who wrote the New Testament. As for your request, if Jesus never existed there will be no facts to prove that. You cannot prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of a thing or person who never existed. I can, however offer loads of evidence and information that supports my claim that Jesus is a fictional character. But I don't think you really want to hear any of that. But if you are, I will give you the name of some books you can read. "The Book your Church Does Not Want You to Read." by Tim C Leedom Order your copy here: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Your-Church-Doesnt-Want/dp/0939040158 and: "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" Order your copy here; http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conspiracy-Greatest-Story-Ever/dp/0932813747/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b The first one you should read first, it will go easy on you. The second one is not kind and gentle so beware. If your faith can survive really reading and considering those two books, then you may go on the be a preacher. If you want more, I have more, but those should be more than enough. If after you read these books, you still deny and renounce this truth, then I can do no more to bring you out of the darkness. You are on your own in your search for truth. (Now THAT is what I call "Preaching.")  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taken from a post in the Science and Philosophy forum.
Here is something to ponder on, Herod was the King at the time Jesus was suppose to have been born. The kings at that time wanted everything documented right down to when and what they ate, everything that was said and all they talked to...even the secret stuff since only they had access to these writings at the time. The problem is in these writings of the kings daily activities there is no mention of searching for the king of the jews like the bible claims, there is no mention of the massacre of the innocent (killing all the young boys about the age Jesus would be). If all this really did happen then why is there no other record of this stuff except for in the big story book called the bible? Because that is all it is, a collection of stories from different people about the same character... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taken from a post in the Science and Philosophy forum. Here is something to ponder on, Herod was the King at the time Jesus was suppose to have been born. The kings at that time wanted everything documented right down to when and what they ate, everything that was said and all they talked to...even the secret stuff since only they had access to these writings at the time. The problem is in these writings of the kings daily activities there is no mention of searching for the king of the jews like the bible claims, there is no mention of the massacre of the innocent (killing all the young boys about the age Jesus would be). If all this really did happen then why is there no other record of this stuff except for in the big story book called the bible? Because that is all it is, a collection of stories from different people about the same character... is it really possible to record EVERYTHING in any one book? is it possible that we have recovered EVERY book ever written (by kings ,scribes or otherwise) why isnt there mention of my great grandpa jack in my american history book? I dont find that so questionable personally |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 03/29/11 03:28 PM
|
|
The point is these Kings did write a lot of stuff down. Stuff that did not really amount to anything important. If something like what is mentioned in the Bible was so important, it would have certainly been written down.
I think that is the point being made. "The kings at that time wanted everything documented right down to when and what they ate, everything that was said and all they talked to...even the secret stuff since only they had access to these writings at the time. " |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point is these Kings did write a lot of stuff down. Stuff that did not really amount to anything important. If something like what is mentioned in the Bible was so important, it would have certainly been written down. I think that is the point being made. "The kings at that time wanted everything documented right down to when and what they ate, everything that was said and all they talked to...even the secret stuff since only they had access to these writings at the time. " I understand that the Kings wrote down what may not 'amount to anything important' point the relationship between that and anything else is what I dont quite get its just doesnt follow that they wrote down EVERYTHING and that EVERYTHING they wrote down has been found and accounted for and therefore this piece is somehow 'missing' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Because Jesus is our savior, Jesus is whom will judge each and everyone of us. Jesus sacrificed himself in the fact that he knew by giving us the new covenant between man and God some people of this earth would be against him. Would crucify him because they would not believe. But Jesus himself in that exact sense wasn't a "sacrificial lamb" for with the coming of the new covenant there was NO NEED FOR SACRIFICING ANYTHING FOR FORGIVENESS. He brought an end to that and is why his death is seen as the sacrificial lamb for God. That's not "Sharing" Cowboy. Where in any of that did you say, "I believe,..." You didn't. You stated everything as though it is some sort of absolute fact that must be accepted. Jesus is not our savior. How's that? Jesus will not judge anyone. Jesus is DEAD. How's that? In fact, I personally don't BELIEVE anything that you've stated above. None of it. I don't believe it either. Why? Because Jesus does not and never has ever existed. That's a fact. How's that? You might want to tell these people that. Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus: "About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 ) ------------------------- TACITUS-Gentile Historian Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Annals 15 -44 ” Mischievous Superstition”. Exitiabilis is the latin word for mischievous. It means destructive, fatal, deadly. So it would seem that what tacitus actually said was it was “a destructive or fatal or deadly superstition”. He was calling Christianity evil. So, it is obvious that he was not a Christian, thus he would not be sharing about the death of Jesus to support the fact that there was a historical Jesus that was killed by Pontius Pilate. Note that Tacitus is not referring to the death of the Jesus as supersititon but the practice of Jesus’ followers. A famous historian, reputed in his own days as being extremely careful and factual, Tacitus would not have been prone to writing about a movement without first checking the Roman archives to see if he could not get the most accurate report possible Its all lies. I'm sorry to break it to you Cowboy but if that is all of your proof, you are in sad shape. Besides, I thought this was not an argument. Now you are presenting your proof? Are you renouncing the truth? Are you denying the facts? I told you before the truth about Josephus. That was just a pen name. Josephus probably never was a real person. Even if he was, he did not write that stuff. Sure, it all lies... Then you confess to not actually knowing the truth about Josephus, yet still call things lies? Now a question for those who would like to answer... It's been said that there are no "non-Biblical" sources of Yashua's existence. If so, do those detractors discount the gnostic writings and the writings of the Jews? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Pan, Cowboy asked me to explain his "evidence."
I explained it as "lies." That's good enough for me. After all, that is what he did to my evidence. So I was just doing to him what he seems to feel is the thing to do. |
|
|
|
|
