The Deceptive Mechanisms

[Undeceived]

Do you know of any historians alive and writing about Judea between 30 and 33 AD?

Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenistic Jew whose life spanned exactly that of Jesus' alleged life. He is the only historian to provide us with a contemporary account of Pontius Pilate and the events around the Mediterranean -- Judea included.

Not one word of a crucified messiah sadly.

One historian. Half the Jews hated Jesus, half loved him. For any grass-roots historian you'd have a 50-50 chance of mention. But Philo was an in-law to Herod, whose family was not on good terms with any "King of the Jews". He also wrote much on Moses, portraying him even as a heavenly figure. Such a view is that of the Pharisees, Jesus' antagonists.

---

Authorship evidence:
Peter- http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/1-peter/
Luke- http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/luke/
John- http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/john/

[FallentoReason]

Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenistic Jew whose life spanned exactly that of Jesus' alleged life. He is the only historian to provide us with a contemporary account of Pontius Pilate and the events around the Mediterranean -- Judea included.

Not one word of a crucified messiah sadly.

One historian. Half the Jews hated Jesus, half loved him. For any grass-roots historian you'd have a 50-50 chance of mention. But Philo was an in-law to Herod, whose family was not on good terms with any "King of the Jews". He also wrote much on Moses, portraying him even as a heavenly figure. Such a view is that of the Pharisees, Jesus' antagonists.

And despite all this, he doesn't feel the need to speak of Jesus negatively, for that would also count as valid evidence of Jesus' existence.

Philo's apparent apathetic attitude towards Jesus is indestinguishable from Jesus' non-existence in my opinion.

Authorship evidence:
Peter- http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/1-peter/
Luke- http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/luke/
John- http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/john/

Meh, not convincing at all. When they rely on things like e.g. "Peter's character" being this or that... it's very much a subjective view.

[Mister Agenda]

FallentoReason, have you ever had confidence in something you had no evidence for?
Can you rationalize every action of yours with scientific logic?
Have you once made a decision with your mind without using probability mathematics?
Do you strive to eliminate emotion from each choice you make?
Is everything 'true' in your life backed up by scientific data alone--in other words, does your opinion always adhere to the views of the world's current best and brightest?

Did someone pay you to reinforce the OP's point?

---

3: I'd check the weather report.
Source.

INDEPENDENT source.

---

You know what tipped me over to atheism? Watching the mental somersaults of Christians trying to convince skeptics that it's the skeptics who are the unreasonable ones. I hope we get a lot of fence-sitters viewing this thread.

[downbeatplumb]

Tacitus:

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

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

From wikipedia.

No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero.[50] If authentic, the passage would constitute one of the earliest, if not the earliest (see: Josephus on Jesus) non-Christian references to Jesus. Those critical of the passage's authenticity argue that early Christian writers likely would have sought to establish the historicity of Jesus via secular or non-Christian documents, and that their silence with regard to the Annals in this manner may suggest that the passage did not exist in early manuscripts.

[Undeceived]

Tacitus: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

From wikipedia.

No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero.[50] If authentic, the passage would constitute one of the earliest, if not the earliest (see: Josephus on Jesus) non-Christian references to Jesus. Those critical of the passage's authenticity argue that early Christian writers likely would have sought to establish the historicity of Jesus via secular or non-Christian documents, and that their silence with regard to the Annals in this manner may suggest that the passage did not exist in early manuscripts.

Did you not read the link you just reposted? It explains why the passage is genuine and lists a dozen other authors who give good reference to Tacitus.
Here it is again: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html