The supreme arrogance of religious thinking

[little_monkey]

There's also a reference in Tacitus' Annals, about a Christus,

Tacitus is looking more and more like a much later interpolation. Probably not until the 15th century.

See post #17 in this thread.

Thanks, interesting piece of info. Yeah, considering the proliferation of the name Christus, or Chretianos, and other variations of the name, one cannot exclude the possibility that Suetonia or Tacitus might be referring to some other individual than Christ himself.

Here is what I posted on a Christian forum:

We know for a fact that Tacitus was never present at the events surrounding Jesus. So where did he get his information? Did he go to Jerusalem to investigate these events? No record of that. Did he examine any official documents that were produced during the time of the events? No record of that. Did he question people that were alive and present at those events? No record of that. So where could he ever have gotten hold of that information? Could it be from Christians living in his time? Quite possibly, and more than likely than not. And what information would he have gotten from those christians living in his times circa 100 CE? I let you answer this one, Genius.

Here was the response:

Sorry, but repeating the same BS does not magically turn it into a valid argument. Essentially, your argument is an argument from silence, and an argument from ignorance. Of course, when I say your argument, I really mean: the collection of loosely connected inane abject nonsense stitched together with blind faith and die-hard fervour you used in lieu of an actual argument.

Here is a pointer: if Tacitus got his information from Christians... why did he not point out that it was false? Why would a highly critical and notoriously reliable historian uncritcally use their statements as evidence?

Can you get a more stupid answer than that?