Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Actually I understand your point only too well. More than you would like me to in fact.
OK then. So where are we now. MAYBE Tacitus got his Christ info from official documents and MAYBE he got it from hearsay, rumour and Christian stories that would no doubt be circulating at the time. So what's your point in insisting that Tacitus was getting his info from the same documents that he got his info on the fire of Rome?
Not my computer so have to do it this way Raf.
I am not insisting Raf. just pointing out that via O.R. the simplest answer is that Tacitus got all the info from the authors he researched, not just part of the info..
Not unless you can show that there was a document that contained info on the fire of Rome AND, in the same text, a reference mentioning the Christ passage. You haven't done and what's more...you never will unless you come up with the verifiable evidence that you claim exists. All you are doing is noting that Tacitus is talking about the fire of Rome by (according to you) referencing an official Roman document and, because he also mentions the Christ passage in the same piece, you are jumping to the unfounded conclusion that your official Roman document also contained that Christ reference too.
...because it is unlikely that Rome would bother to record the execution of a ragged-arsed, wandering rabbi.
...because (even if they did) it is unlikely that those records would have been kept for a hundred years.
...because it is unlikely that any official Roman document would have referred to 'Christ'....
...it is likely that the Christ info was not derived from any official Roman archive but from info that Tacitus picked up from rumour, hearsay or Christian folklore circulating at the time.
Hear is the difference between what we are saying and using Raf. My opinion via O.R.'s authors of the Tacitus passage is based on actual evidence of the authors in that they wrote something, Tacitus used it, thus we have something solid, literature to base my O.R. opinion on.
You have NOTHING. No evidence of any kind, just your own opinion about what you don't think the Romans would or would not do and you use O.R. on your own opinion of course your going to get the answer you want.
Thus the evidence (literature) is in my favor by a long shot as it is solid evidence, you are basing your evidence on your opinion.
If now you are saying (as you appear to be) that you are not claiming it as a fact then fine. We are both simply putting forward our beliefs based on what we think is likely. We have both now done that and, until someone else joins the discussion to add weight to one side or the other, we at an impasse.
It would appear so, as you seem to believe your opinions carry as much weight as the literature by the authors via O.R. which lead to the Christ passage being in the authors writings.
I am not insisting Raf. just pointing out that via O.R. the simplest answer is that Tacitus got all the info from the authors he researched, not just part of the info..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Hear is the difference between what we are saying and using Raf. My opinion via O.R.'s authors of the Tacitus passage is based on actual evidence of the authors in that they wrote something, Tacitus used it, thus we have something solid, literature to base my O.R. opinion on.
You have NOTHING. No evidence of any kind, just your own opinion about what you don't think the Romans would or would not do and you use O.R. on your own opinion of course your going to get the answer you want.
Thus the evidence (literature) is in my favor by a long shot as it is solid evidence, you are basing your evidence on your opinion.
It's clear that this Price has done his homework. I find that most believers never put in this amount of effort to understand what's written in the "gospels".
After you carefully look at those links please come back with any disputes you have against them. I am genuinely interested in hearing any disputes.
PS: I am not an Atheist.
I did a quick scan this morning before work and saw a few things right of the hop, but alas it is for another thread, if you so choose to make one.
I do not care if you are an atheist, Christian, agnostic etc. Mat. evidence is evidence and I will deal with it as best I can. We all should be willing to tackle the hard questions. For me leaving the hard questions out only cause a weakness in my faith ( I am a Christian) however asking them, applying what you see can and will strengthen your faith. For me that which cannot be shaken will only become that much stronger.
I did a quick scan this morning before work and saw a few things right of the hop, but alas it is for another thread, if you so choose to make one.
You did a quick scan and this is the best you can come back with?
I don't even have a clue what "few things" you are referring to.
Why should that be for another thread?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
