(March 29, 2018 at 4:40 pm)Succubus Wrote:

Quote:There is. It's just what was known goes into much detail it is considered a religious text rather than a 3rd party source, unless it was an offical document.

Quote:I'm sorry but I cannot parse this.

because you have not finished reading everything that supported this statement.

Quote:For example look at what we call "the book of Luke or the book of ACTS" written by an affiliated non-jew/christian commissioned by what was believed to be a very wealth roman official for his own personal enlightenment.

Quote:Do either of these 'affiliated non-jew/christians' - 'wealthy Roman officials' have names?

Luke and Theophilus

Quote:Luke's recording of the book of luke was written before He was converted.

Quote:There is no such 'book' in the new testament

glob.. what are you using the Mormon bible?
link to the book of luke: Pay attention to the first paragraph:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=NIV

It explains he is a gentile doctor with no christian or jewish attachment but was sent by theophilus to document the jesus phenoma.

Quote:, do you mean Acts?

No I mean luke who also wrote the book of acts as the book was written to the same theophilus.

Quote:Acts is badly written fan fiction and for you to claim the author was converted you have to give him a name, Acts just like the four gospels was written anonymously.

glob...
You have no working knowledge of the bible. (you haven't even read it) yet you are giving me a synopsis of it? how foolish of you.
Regardless of the name of the author (which is identified by luke in the book of luke and by Paul as being one of his scribes who is mention 4 different times.) we know the author of both the book of luke and act wrote each book to "Theophilus."

Quote:it for him was just the documentation of what was known by Paul. Yet this effort is dismissed as a religious text even though a 3rd party person wrote it.

Quote:And yet what the author of Acts says about Paul is quite often in direct conflict with what Paul says himself.

Book chapter and verse other wise i call B/S

Quote:...Now if we had a complete library of all ancient writings and jesus shows up as much as he does, then your question wold be valid.

Quote:If my granny had wheels she would be a bus.

noshe would be an old lady with wheels. despite your red herring if we do not have a complete record of roman writting you can not say no one in rome wrote about a,b or c. Remember the fire in rome destroy almost all record pre 66AD when did Jesus live... 4bc to 30ish AD??? wouldn't that be in the lot that was burned? (you) yes but my grandma is a bus so your reasoning does not count.

Ah, no sorry sport it does not work that way. you've stacked the deck with your question.

Quote:as it stands however with less than fraction remaining of what was once written it is foolish to say Rome did not write about Christ.

Quote:You can not appeal to evidence that does not exist.

I can appeal to History that show Nero had the heart of rome burnt out this fire burned for 6 days! and nights. then it reignited and burned 4 more days.. 6 of the 10 rome districts were completely destroyed. So what do you think burned mud huts and stone buildings? mosaics and cobble stone streets?
Nothing was spared including Governmental buildings residents and even ceasar's palaces. this included a vast scriptorums that documented everything.

Quote:It is like having a collection of old TV guides that ranged from 1978 to 1988 then someone asking you can you prove via your tv guides that regan was indeed an actor... after all if President Regan was an actor should the most powerful man of that time who shared a vocation with the people normally featured in TV guide?
TV guid does indeed mention regan as an actor but ironically not during his tenior as president except in passing. it's not till 2017 did they write a large story about Him.

Quote:Are you attempting to draw a parallel with the first century void? If all we have are TV guides from that decade you would have a point. But we do have many hundreds of references to Reagan's acting career.

are you retarded?
The paralell I'm drawing was to limitsource material to one source tv guid/rome and one time period 1980s forward because 66ad the fire of rome elimated all previous record.

Do you understand? you using the official record is a moot act because the record will only include anything from 66AD forward. Jesus lived before then. so to have a first hand account in a roman document will be unlikely as we do not have a complete record of what the romans wrote about Jesus. This is one of the reasons people like ISIS burn out and destroy a given people's culture and history. so that propagandist such as yourself can rewrite history with a fraction of the push back as they would normally get.

Quote:The point drags over to Christ in that without a complete record of what was written we can not say conclusively how much was written. Remember the Heart of Rome was burnt out under Nero (which was after Christ) which if I remember correctly included over 6 scriptoriums which included in the clearing of the way of the collocium at the end of the 1st century.

I'll get back to this.

Quote:Now all of that said... Here are some examples of roman officials and non religious third party people acknowledging Jesus in that time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
There is a mentioning of Jesus being executed by  pilate in His work the "Annals"

Quote:Oh alllright then if you insist. Tacitus it is .
If the Tacitus reference is genuine, and there is considerable doubt that it is, then you have two options. He was either referring to what Christians were saying or he had access to Roman records.

Or He simply witnessed what He recorded.


"Remember the Heart of Rome was burnt out under Nero"

Quote:You can't have it both ways.

WTF's are you talking about. the burning of rome is historical fact.

Quote:It very much looks as though this fire was rather selective in what it destroyed. What records was Tacitus studying, where did he find them, when did he find them?

people moron. how do historean write about events they did not witness now?!?! They interview people who were there!

Quote:The Heart of Rome was burnt out in AD 64 and yet in AD 116 Tacitus comes by this absolute revelation! Now that, is a miracle.

you can't fathom a 50 year old eye witness?

<Some silly stuff deleted>

Quote:We have the writtings of pilate

We have no such fucking thing!

yah-huh!

Quote:we also have the letter of lentulus
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Letter_of_Lentulus

This is proof positive you're taking the piss. From your link:

1. there was no Publius Lentulus, governor of Judea, preceding Pontius Pilate; history gives the appointment from A.D. 15-26 to Valerius Grattus
   
2. if there had been a procurator of Syria, he would have written to the Emperor, not to the Senate, because the province was an imperial one; and
   
3. the title "Jesus Christus" was not used as early as this; while the expressions "prophet of truth" and "sons of men" are Hebrew idioms.
   

Quote:...there is more written about Him durning that time period than anyone else including julius ceasar... yet for you that is not enough because despite fact that is not what you want to believe.

LIAR!

thats the way I heard it:
http://theancientbridge.com/wp-content/u...letter.pdf

also I forgot about these mentioning and letters to emporers:
Tacitus is one of three key Roman authors who may refer to early Christians, the other two being Pliny the Younger and Suetonius.[65][66] These authors refer to events which took place during the reign of various Roman emperors, Suetonius writing about an expulsion from Rome during the reign of Claudius (41 to 54), and also punishments by Nero (who reigned from 54 to 68), Pliny's letters are to Trajan about the trials he was holding for Christians around 111 AD.[65] But the temporal order for the documents begins with Pliny writing around 111 AD, then Tacitus around 115/116 AD and then Suetonius writing in the Lives of the Twelve Caesars around 122 AD.[65][67] Thus 47 to 58 years after the 64 AD fire and Nero's alleged persecution.
`wiki

Yes, Jesus was likely a historical figure. That's all that the references from Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc., show. Still, as others have pointed out, if Jesus was as popular as he is portrayed in the Gospels, there should have been a helluva lot more references to his life from secular sources of his own day.

But, instead, nothing but silence.

Quote:...Or He simply witnessed what He recorded...

Are you referring to this?

Quote:...If the Tacitus reference is genuine, and there is considerable doubt that it is, then you have two options. He was either referring to what Christians were saying or he had access to Roman records...

Are you suggesting Tacitus wrote Annals when he was ten years old?


As for the rest; I really can't be fucked on.

I am convinced that the reference from Tacitus is authentic, but it was such a minor reference, almost in passing. Clearly, Tactius, an educated Roman senator, was unimpressed with the claims of the new Christian religions.

I am convinced that most atheists have an unfounded belief in abiogenesis. They expect theists to prove ID to be true yet they can't prove happenstance is true. It is kind of a double standard.

Obvious troll is obvious.

---

(March 30, 2018 at 2:08 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I am convinced that the reference from Tacitus is authentic, but it was such a minor reference, almost in passing.  Clearly, Tactius, an educated Roman senator, was unimpressed with the claims of the new Christian religions.

Well let's suppose it is indeed from his hand, that doesn't really tell us much. Tacitus wasn't born until AD 57 so anything he had to say is hearsay. Having said that we do have proof positive that Annals was altered centuries later in a Christian monastery, there are also a slew of other highly questionable things regarding that passage. As the adage goes, find one lie; suspect a thousand more.

(March 30, 2018 at 3:57 pm)He lives Wrote: I am convinced that most atheists have an unfounded belief in abiogenesis. They expect theists to prove ID to be true yet they can't prove happenstance is true. It is kind of a double standard.

Happenstance explains why little children sometimes get cancer.

(March 26, 2018 at 2:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Why did you get a bible?

Best defence against rhinos and hippopotomi. Why do you think Dr. Livingstone lasted so long in Africa?

---

(March 26, 2018 at 8:23 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Jesus was mentioned by Josephus, but even the early Christian scribes began to notice the obscurity of Jesus within Josephus, so much they were compelled to forge one of the passages:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus...lavianum_3

No he wasn't. Jesus was mentioned in Eusebius' copy of Josephus' Antiquities.

Nobody else's copy mentioned Jesus until Eusebius' translation was declared official.

Oh, Jehanne you're also wrong about Tacitus, the reference came from an 11th century copy where spectral and xray analysis showed the references to "Christus" and "Christianes" originally read "Chrestus" and "Chrestianes". There were many cults of holy men called Chrestus in early Principate Rome. Also if Tacitus knew about Jesus why did the rcc ensure all extant copies of his Histories have the years when Jesus was supposedly on ministry and becoming famous excluded?

Quote:I am convinced that most atheists have an unfounded belief in abiogenesis. 

Nope accepting that i good case has been made for abiogenesis is not an unfounded "belief" nor is it an atheist position . So like everything else you have stated your conviction is the only thing here that's unfounded . 

Quote:They expect theists to prove ID to be true yet they can't prove happenstance is true. 

Yup they do need to demonstrate ID. Not to atheists but to science which is not atheism . And we don't need to proves  happenstance because it not a position anyones defending . Just a straw man you invented in your head. And no you need to demonstrate a god is behind everything if you can't then you have failed.

Quote:It is kind of a double standard.

Nope a  heap of straw man invented by you

---

Quote:That's all that the references from Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc., show

Except all those references are problematic and weak at best.

---

Note to christians. Stop comparing Jesus to other figures . He is not like any of them . Argument from spartacus 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7924 

https://celsus.blog/2012/10/14/ten-reaso...ce-slogan/

(March 30, 2018 at 6:19 pm)Wololo Wrote:

(March 26, 2018 at 2:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Why did you get a bible?

Best defence against rhinos and hippopotomi. Why do you think Dr. Livingstone lasted so long in Africa?

---

(March 26, 2018 at 8:23 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Jesus was mentioned by Josephus, but even the early Christian scribes began to notice the obscurity of Jesus within Josephus, so much they were compelled to forge one of the passages:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus...lavianum_3

No he wasn't. Jesus was mentioned in Eusebius' copy of Josephus' Antiquities.

Nobody else's copy mentioned Jesus until Eusebius' translation was declared official.

Oh, Jehanne you're also wrong about Tacitus, the reference came from an 11th century copy where spectral and xray analysis showed the references to "Christus" and "Christianes" originally read "Chrestus" and "Chrestianes". There were many cults of holy men called Chrestus in early Principate Rome. Also if Tacitus knew about Jesus why did the rcc ensure all extant copies of his Histories have the years when Jesus was supposedly on ministry and becoming famous excluded?

Your analysis, if correct, is wonderful!

Fact is, though, that NO secular source around 30 AD thought that Jesus was even worthy of mention. Why is that? (Question for believers, too!)