Yes, if the Tacitus reference is a fraud then it does become an argument from silence. It means that NO ONE linked Nero with any persecution of xtians. Your religious frauds would much rather rely on a forgery that tells them what they want to hear than seek out facts which might undercut their precious beliefs.
Here is a web site I keep handy which deals with the issue.
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm
Somewhere along the line, xtian apologists have latched onto the mantra "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is, of course, completely false. Absence of evidence is most definitely evidence of absence. It is not PROOF of absence ( a distinction these shitwits have trouble comprehending ) as a future discovery may overturn our current knowledge on a given subject.
Were I to assert that there was a thriving European city on the site of New York 200 years before the Dutch arrived and were someone to dig down to 15th century levels and find nothing it most assuredly would be evidence that my claim was full of shit. There is always the possibility that the Norse or someone were there but until I present positive evidence that my claim is true it must be rejected as false.
Now, Lit_Mon, I grant you this nuanced look at the world is far too complex for your average Talking-Snake believer but that should not stop us from stomping on them when they utter such pointless crap.
Here is a web site I keep handy which deals with the issue.
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm
Quote:Tacitus is the only writer to connect the fire with the Christians. Nero was blamed, both at the time and in all other subsequent writers on the fire, and supposedly blamed the Christians for arson. He then condemned “large numbers” of them to be crucified and torched during the night. This must have been a big affair and there must have been “large numbers” of so-called Christians.
In his earlier ‘Histories’ Tacitus has a different attitude. The person in charge of persecutions in Rome was the City Prefect, Police Chief of Rome. Under Nero this was a man described by Tacitus in his ‘Histories’ bk. 3, #65, #75 - “His gentle character made him hate bloodshed and killing... His honesty and fair-mindedness are beyond question.” Flavius Sabinus, brother of Vespasian, was City Prefect of Rome from 56-69, covering the Neronian period of the disputed persecutions! Would a man of this character do the things described in the ‘Annals’ and Sulpicius?
The big question is why the Church Fathers know Nothing of this important information from Tacitus? The two partial manuscripts were found in the Medici library dating from 1313 to 1375. It is only after this time, much after, that the story became almost an Article of Faith about the early Church.
Somewhere along the line, xtian apologists have latched onto the mantra "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is, of course, completely false. Absence of evidence is most definitely evidence of absence. It is not PROOF of absence ( a distinction these shitwits have trouble comprehending ) as a future discovery may overturn our current knowledge on a given subject.
Were I to assert that there was a thriving European city on the site of New York 200 years before the Dutch arrived and were someone to dig down to 15th century levels and find nothing it most assuredly would be evidence that my claim was full of shit. There is always the possibility that the Norse or someone were there but until I present positive evidence that my claim is true it must be rejected as false.
Now, Lit_Mon, I grant you this nuanced look at the world is far too complex for your average Talking-Snake believer but that should not stop us from stomping on them when they utter such pointless crap.
