Did I tell you I did not want you telling me what is illogical? Or did I ask you what you find illogical about people reading both all the Gospels and the outside historical sources, and then forming their own conclusion? If your only answer is, “Well, there are many accounts of alien abductions, and you don’t believe those” then you are correct. There are many accounts of alien abductions and I don’t believe those. Perhaps because no historian has yet written of earthlings being abducted?
Who knows…you are all over the place!
Well when you say “fine” over and over it comes across as passive aggressive.
Sorry but i find it very difficult conversing if the other party refuses to consider context, and continually points the finger at others while refusing to acknowledge their own part in communication. Have a good week. Ignored
Let’s start with Tacitus first. He was born over 20 years after Christ’s Crucifixion so clearly not an eyewitness. And what did he write about specifically? Did he write about Christ rising from the dead or just that he had been crucified?
It is a point in favor of the historicity of Jesus. On that we can agree.
According to wiki, Tacitus just wrote about the crucifixion. So, not much relevance to the belief that jesus was God and rose from dead.
He spoke of Hell 60 times, of Heaven 180 times.
Here is what Tacitus wrote:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
This was written in regards to the fire in Rome in 64. The disappointing problem with Tacitus’ Annals is that whatever he wrote about the years when Jesus’ trial were in Annals that did not survive.
So I assume we are in agreement that Tacitus was mute on the divinity of Christ.
I think it can be safely assumed that Tacitus thought the whole thing bunk.
Thanks. So Tacitus can be used as evidence of Christ being a historical figure but not of any miracles or being divine. Still, it is something.
That is correct.
I think Josephus falls under the same category. Agreed?
Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud, of Jewish heritage, would not think of Jesus, a man, could ever be God. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, both Roman Citizens, found Christianity a great nuisance. They thought early Christian belief of Jesus being God or the Son of God was clearly a superstition.
With the four authors of the Gospels, and the four authors who saw little (if any) good in it, we can get a pretty fair picture of the debate and divide going on during the first century.
So in response to a question about Christian faith being illogical and not based on empirical evidence, we are presented with two historians who think the act of jesus rising from the dead and being god is superstition lol …looking more and more like the classic “bible says so” thought/“logic”
If you truly accept The Lord’s free gift, you are saved. So the ONLY question is…do you?
Can I be saved if I accept after I die and stand before him?
I will not begrudge His generosity if He does.
Cool. I don’t really think there is a God but if I die and find out I was wrong…then I will accept his generosity.
That is a fools answer. You must be into S & M.
So God cannot do his will, which goes against his being almighty, yet you think my statement wrong.
My bitterness is born of my love for intelligent people which is not what your religion is creating.
Do you think a place of purposeless torture then death is a moral construct?
Would you, given God’s power create such a place or would you cure the souls instead of torturing them and killing them?