MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Jackalope]

WLC is a good rhetorician, and nothing more.

Craig would not know a fact if it bit him in the ass.

Also kind of my point.

[Jackalope]

And his source was what? Tacitus wasn't born until decades after the event in question - he couldn't have had personal knowledge of the events. So how did he know?

Well, then there shouldn't be a "history" subject in our school system, since every history teacher was born centuries after Columbus, the famous wars, and any other event in history.

And if you say "well, they are using contemporary sources"...well, the same could be said about Tacitus.

The difference is, that in the former case, we actually *have* contemporary sources, and in the latter, we do not. Has this escaped you?

What precisely were Tactitus' contemporary sources? (Hint: they don't exist.)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This thread is beginning to smell like an Abo's armpit on a summer day.

Boru

[His_Majesty]

Fool.

Jesus was born around the time of either Herod the Great's death (4 acE) or the Roman annexation of Judea (6 CE), then preached in Galilee and was crucified under Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE) during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (14-37 CE). Right? Well, we're not really sure. Because Christians weren't really sure. Some Christians bel ieved Jesus died during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54 cE). Others believed he was executed by a Herod, not Pilate. And still others were certain he was born and died in the reign of King Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BeE). That's right. Some Christians believed Jesus had lived and died a hundred years earlier than our Gospels claim.

Carrier pg. 281


You have no idea when your bullshit story was codified. Your ignorance is typical of the breed so I can't blame you. In fact, after listening to your prattle the best for you is to take your bible and stick it and your head up your ass. You are a hopeless case.


P.S. Tacitus is a forgery....and he said "Chrestianos" not "Christianos."

Bullshit....but lets go with that...so "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures of a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Chrestianos, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at that hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate

All historians, whether Christian or not, know that there was only one man from whom the label "Christian" was applied to, and that is Jesus of Nazareth.

Feeble objections...feeble.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did you forget what I mentioned about Nero, that fastening of guilt, and your other sources already? Hint: now you've lost Pliny in order to maintain a forgery. Gratz.

[Jackalope]

All historians, whether Christian or not, know that there was only one man from whom the label "Christian" was applied to, and that is Jesus of Nazareth.

Now you're begging the question.

Keep at it. This is entertaining.

[His_Majesty]

The difference is, that in the former case, we actually *have* contemporary sources, and in the latter, we do not. Has this escaped you? What precisely were Tactitus' contemporary sources? (Hint: they don't exist.)

How do you know who is contemporary and who isn't? Or are you just believing what someone told you? Ahhh, I see.

No really, I really want to know...how DO you know that George Washington was our first President? Were you there?? Ahhhhh yes yes...you have to believe what you were told, right?

Well, so did Tacitus.

---

Now you're begging the question.

Do we have a historical record of any other person besides Jesus of Nazareth who gained a following of believers called "Christian"? No, we don't.

Keep the foolishness coming.

---

This thread is beginning to smell like an Abo's armpit on a summer day.

Boru

And I am the guy fumigating the odor

[Jackalope]

The difference is, that in the former case, we actually *have* contemporary sources, and in the latter, we do not. Has this escaped you? What precisely were Tactitus' contemporary sources? (Hint: they don't exist.)

How do you know who is contemporary and who isn't? Or are you just believing what someone told you? Ahhh, I see.

No really, I really want to know...how DO you know that George Washington was our first President? Were you there?? Ahhhhh yes yes...you have to believe what you were told, right?

Well, so did Tacitus.

Are you really this stupid?

Now you're begging the question.

Do we have a historical record of any other person besides Jesus of Nazareth who gained a following of believers called "Christian"? No, we don't.

You don't even have that (it is, in fact one of the questions we seek to answer here), and given that it's one element of what you're trying to prove, it's absolutely question begging to assert it here.

Keep the foolishness coming.

Indeed. It's entertaining.

But please, do continue as if your entire argument isn't fallacious.

[Cato]

No really, I really want to know...how DO you know that George Washington was our first President? Were you there?? Ahhhhh yes yes...you have to believe what you were told, right?

Even David Barton isn't this fucking stupid.

[His_Majesty]

Even David Barton isn't this fucking stupid.

Even David Blaine couldn't make you magically post an intelligent objection to this shit.

He would say "Hey, I do magic, not miracles".