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, not more disinformation. Not from me. From you. You know damn well that neither Tacitus nor Suetonius wrote three hundred years after Jesus, but you conveniently left that fact out when you make the statement ''because historians writing 300 years later about such events are completely useless when it comes to verifying such incredible things that don't happen in real life.''
And now here you go again denying that Tacitus doesn't prove that Jesus was real. What Tacitus does is independently verify the existence, the crucifixion of Jesus and that after his crucifixion, the movement that he started took off and spread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Presuming Tacitus is genuine, how do you know he was independent of the gospels, or christian beliefs? We do not know his source or sources.
And you still have to explain why people did not mention this passage until centuries later, despite searching the histories for any mention of Jesus.
Was the passage or passages, available at the time of Tacitus or Suetonius?
" ... the first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) Imagine it! If the writing of the New Testament had been begun at the same time as the U.S. Constitution, we wouldn't see a final product until the year 2076! The four Gospels were written from thirty to sixty years after Jesus' death and resurrection. In the interim, the Church relied on oral tradition-the accounts of eyewitnesses-as well as scattered pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. Most churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. As the eyewitnesses of Christ's life and teachings began to die, the Apostles wrote as they were guided by the Holy Spirit, in order to preserve and solidify the scattered written and oral tradition. Because the Apostles expected Christ to return soon, it seems they did not have in mind that these gospel accounts and apostolic letters would in time be collected into a new Bible. During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture." (emphasis is mine)
The Christian god is all-powerful and he wants people to believe in his son as their savior who died on the cross for their sins. That's a given, right? So if the Christian god went through all the trouble to sacrifice his son for our sake, wouldn't he have left irrefutable evidence of this--evidence so powerful and so undeniable that people like myself, and Harry, and mordent, and northsouth could not present anything to contradict it? Doesn't all that stand to reason?
So if the Christian god wants us to believe in Jesus then why do atheists have all this ammunition to contradict the Christian's claims that Jesus was the divine son of God? Why can I sit here and point out that NOT A SINGLE HISTORIAN OF THE 1ST CENTURY MENTIONS THEY WITNESSED JESUS DIE AND RESURRECT NOR DID THEY TALK TO ANYONE WHO WITNESSED JESUS CHRIST DIE AND RESURRECT? Why can I point out that nothing from the crucifixion--a Roman record of the trial, the cross, the tomb, writings of witnesses who saw the risen Christ exists? The Christian god is all-powerful, right. He could have preserved all this evidence to prove to the world he sent Jesus to die for us, but he DIDN'T PRESERVE ANYTHING. We have nothing in the historic record to prove the Jesus of the Bible was real. We don't have the original gospels. We don't have anything written from the 1st century preserved. The best the Christian god could do was to preserve a teensie-tiny credit card size fragment of what looks like the gospel of John, P52 that dates from 125 to 175 CE.
If the Christian god wants us to believe in Jesus is this really the best he could do, given that he is all-powerful and can do anything he desires????????
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
So if the Christian god wants us to believe in Jesus then why do atheists have all this ammunition to contradict the Christian's claims that Jesus was the divine son of God?
It seems the authorities of the Church back in its day referred to those that repeated the stories as heretics/heresy. Atheists are not the first to question and quite possibly find contradictions.
I'm still waiting for a response, Michael, or do you not want to touch this one with a 10-foot pole?
Michael likely isn't discussing it because I have done so before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPHJ7
I expected Thrillobyte to parrot the typical mythicist script about "Chrestians"; it's yet another PRATT that the mythicist sphere hasn't gotten the memo on. Before you get too deep into this discussion, I would reccomend that you say "chrestianos" and then "christianos" ten times fast, just to get an idea of how pedantic this is.
There isn't any hint here that Tacitus is talking about some other religious group that existed supposedly named "Chrestians". There is no reference to the sect of "Chrestians" outside this passage. Some mythicists try referencing a passing mention made to a "Chrestus" in a work by Suetonius, but Suetonius never mentions a sect of "Chrestians", and it's likely he just misheard the Greek word for 'Messiah' - that is, 'Christos' - as mentioned by Jews. Use Occam's Razor for a moment; is it more likely that there was some whole other religious group that only Tacitus talked about, or that he just spelled "Christianos" differently? Meanwhile these Roman "Chrestians" sure act a whole lot like the 1st-century Christians, don't they? Well, as the saying goes, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck".
As for the "e" in the manuscript being changed to look like an "i", well, let's pull out our friend Occam's Razor for a moment; is it more likely that a Christian scribe replaced "e" with "i" to cover up an entire other religion that there's no other evidence for, or is it more likely that he - reasonably - thought it was a spelling mistake and tried fixing it?
" ... the first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) Imagine it! If the writing of the New Testament had been begun at the same time as the U.S. Constitution, we wouldn't see a final product until the year 2076! The four Gospels were written from thirty to sixty years after Jesus' death and resurrection. In the interim, the Church relied on oral tradition-the accounts of eyewitnesses-as well as scattered pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. Most churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. As the eyewitnesses of Christ's life and teachings began to die, the Apostles wrote as they were guided by the Holy Spirit, in order to preserve and solidify the scattered written and oral tradition. Because the Apostles expected Christ to return soon, it seems they did not have in mind that these gospel accounts and apostolic letters would in time be collected into a new Bible. During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture." (emphasis is mine)
Just so the audience is clear: Tacitus and Suetonius were not relying on any Biblical scriptures when they wrote their volumes because far as the historical record indicates there weren't any scriptures. They were hearing stories circulating around the 'hood about a leader of a group calling themselves Chrestians OR they acquired this name from other people because of who they were purported to be following. When Tacitus wrote his Annals he included a tidbit about Nero blaming this group called Chrestians for the fire that burned Rome and that the group was called Chrestians after its leader's name who "suffered the extreme penalty" under Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was an extremely cruel procurator and likely crucified thousands of criminals, many of them likely seditionists against Rome who had followings. Why do nearly all Christian historians make the giant leap to this person being Jesus?
Because they have heard this assumption for 2000 years over and over and over. When a conclusion has been reached for which there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant it then that conclusion falls under the heading of "PROPAGANDA" and Christians were master propagandists when it came to inventing stories to push their faith further ahead than the others their faith was competing against. For example, we know for a fact that the earliest copy of Annals that survived dates from about the 9th Century. It had passed through innumerable Christian hands by then. Someone, we don't know who--could have been a Christian or it could have been a secular historian--changed the "e" in Chrestians to "i" to make "Chrestians" look like "Christians". We have the proof:
Was it an innocent correction or a nefarious attempt to bolster belief in Jesus? We have no idea from the available information. So naturally Christians like Michael Way will insist the word was originally Christians while unbelievers like myself will go with what looks more like the likely case and go with Chrestians. We don't have Tacitus' original copy so we can't prove it either way. All we know for certain is that it was changed.
Also the dates for the gospels is incorrect. The date for the gospels is 40-90 years after Jesus. Mark at its earliest had to have been written 70-75 CE because it has a passage of Jesus predicting the destruction of the Jewish temple and we know that could not have been written by anyone before the event. But once again, Christian propaganda wins the day so the date 65 CE gets bandied about.
That's the truth. You'll ALWAYS get the truth from an atheist because that's all we have--the facts.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 09-15-2022 at 09:49 AM..
I expected Thrillobyte to parrot the typical mythicist script about "Chrestians"; it's yet another PRATT that the mythicist sphere hasn't gotten the memo on. Before you get too deep into this discussion, I would reccomend that you say "chrestianos" and then "christianos" ten times fast, just to get an idea of how pedantic this is.
There isn't any hint here that Tacitus is talking about some other religious group that existed supposedly named "Chrestians". There is no reference to the sect of "Chrestians" outside this passage. Some mythicists try referencing a passing mention made to a "Chrestus" in a work by Suetonius, but Suetonius never mentions a sect of "Chrestians", and it's likely he just misheard the Greek word for 'Messiah' - that is, 'Christos' - as mentioned by Jews. Use Occam's Razor for a moment; is it more likely that there was some whole other religious group that only Tacitus talked about, or that he just spelled "Christianos" differently? Meanwhile these Roman "Chrestians" sure act a whole lot like the 1st-century Christians, don't they? Well, as the saying goes, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck".
As for the "e" in the manuscript being changed to look like an "i", well, let's pull out our friend Occam's Razor for a moment; is it more likely that a Christian scribe replaced "e" with "i" to cover up an entire other religion that there's no other evidence for, or is it more likely that he - reasonably - thought it was a spelling mistake and tried fixing it?
Your post is a mishmash ad hominems, misstatements, and bad scholarship. Where to begin...
Okay, start at the beginning.
* I am not a mythicist in the strict definition of the word.
"Mythicism is the belief that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical figure but was derived from a group of mythical gods and demigods ..."
I've acknowledged a hundred times that an ordinary person upon which the Jesus son of God myth was based may have existed. There's no record of such a person so how do we know?
>>>>>>> "say Chrestiano then Christiano ten times fast"
Come on! What are you, a 2 year old? Just another ad hominem you Christians are so good at throwing.
>>>>>>>>>"Chrestians" are just Christians but with their name spelled differently.
What's your authority on that or did you just pull it out of your hat?
>>>>>>>>The Christians/"Chrestians" of Rome, more likely than not, spoke Greek
I just love these crap phrases you throw out that authority-wise don't mean a thing.
>>>>>>>> He likely transliterated their name and spelled it slightly differently.
More crap words that are just smoke and mirrors and don't mean a thing. I showed you the photo of the deliberate change that someone made to "Chrestus". There was no "slightly different" spelling in this at all. It'd help if you stopped using all this smoke to cover up the fact you have no authority to back up any of this.
>>>>>>>>>There isn't any hint here that Tacitus is talking about some other religious group
There isn't supposed to be any hint here. Tacitus is not hinting at anything. He's flat out telling the reader that a specific group of rebel-rousers who were called "Chrestians" were blamed by Nero for causing the Rome fire and that their leader was crucified under Pilate. Where in any of that do you get the idea Tacitus is not "hinting" of anything, much less some other religious group??????
>>>>>>>There is no reference to the sect of "Chrestians" outside this passage.
If Tacitus wrote "Chrestians" he meant Chrestians. He wasn't hinting at anything.You might have a valid argument of there being no such person named Chrestus" if Suetonius hadn't used the exact same name in his "Claudius 25".
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
This demonstrates that there was such a name as Chrestos from which the term "Chrestians" could derive if we have Tacitus AND Suetonius using Chrestos and Chrestians in their writings.
>>>>>>>>>it's likely he just misheard the Greek word for 'Messiah'
There's that crap word you love to use to cover your lack of any solid authority.
>>>>>>>>>Use Occam's Razor for a moment
I don't rely on Occam's Razor because it has no authority and leaves room for all sorts of misinformation and deceptions and the like which no doubt is why you love it--I see you using it every other post. Let me tell you something, MPH: Atheists don't have to rely on Occam's razor when they have the truth on their side. Christians are forced to rely on Occam's razor to bluff their way through an argument because they don't have the truth on their side.
>>>>>>>>is it more likely that a Christian scribe replaced "e" with "i" to cover up
There's that crap word again
And the cherry on top? A referral to one of the most notorious Christian apologists on the planet.
Your post is a mishmash ad hominems, misstatements, and bad scholarship. Where to begin...
Okay, start at the beginning.
* I am not a mythicist in the strict definition of the word.
"Mythicism is the belief that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical figure but was derived from a group of mythical gods and demigods ..."
I've acknowledged a hundred times that an ordinary person upon which the Jesus son of God myth was based may have existed. There's no record of such a person so how do we know?
>>>>>>> "say Chrestiano then Christiano ten times fast"
Come on! What are you, a 2 year old? Just another ad hominem you Christians are so good at throwing.
>>>>>>>>>"Chrestians" are just Christians but with their name spelled differently.
What's your authority on that or did you just pull it out of your hat?
>>>>>>>>The Christians/"Chrestians" of Rome, more likely than not, spoke Greek
I just love these crap phrases you throw out that authority-wise don't mean a thing.
>>>>>>>> He likely transliterated their name and spelled it slightly differently.
More crap words that are just smoke and mirrors and don't mean a thing. I showed you the photo of the deliberate change that someone made to "Chrestus". There was no "slightly different" spelling in this at all. It'd help if you stopped using all this smoke to cover up the fact you have no authority to back up any of this.
>>>>>>>>>There isn't any hint here that Tacitus is talking about some other religious group
There isn't supposed to be any hint here. Tacitus is not hinting at anything. He's flat out telling the reader that a specific group of rebel-rousers who were called "Chrestians" were blamed by Nero for causing the Rome fire and that their leader was crucified under Pilate. Where in any of that do you get the idea Tacitus is not "hinting" of anything, much less some other religious group??????
>>>>>>>There is no reference to the sect of "Chrestians" outside this passage.
If Tacitus wrote "Chrestians" he meant Chrestians. He wasn't hinting at anything.You might have a valid argument of there being no such person named Chrestus" if Suetonius hadn't used the exact same name in his "Claudius 25".
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
This demonstrates that there was such a name as Chrestos from which the term "Chrestians" could derive if we have Tacitus AND Suetonius using Chrestos and Chrestians in their writings.
>>>>>>>>>it's likely he just misheard the Greek word for 'Messiah'
There's that crap word you love to use to cover your lack of any solid authority.
>>>>>>>>>Use Occam's Razor for a moment
I don't rely on Occam's Razor because it has no authority and leaves room for all sorts of misinformation and deceptions and the like which no doubt is why you love it--I see you using it every other post. Let me tell you something, MPH: Atheists don't have to rely on Occam's razor when they have the truth on their side. Christians are forced to rely on Occam's razor to bluff their way through an argument because they don't have the truth on their side.
>>>>>>>>is it more likely that a Christian scribe replaced "e" with "i" to cover up
There's that crap word again
And the cherry on top? A referral to one of the most notorious Christian apologists on the planet.
PLEEEZE!
''The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[9][10]''
''Although its authenticity has sometimes been questioned, most scholars hold the passage to be authentic.[41][42][43] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[44] Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[5][6][7][44]''
Scholarly consensus is that Tacitus was referring to the execution of Jesus. Most scholars hold the passage to be authentic. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.
The sources for those statement are in the reference section of the article.
You might want to rant and rave about something else.
Just so the audience is clear: Tacitus and Suetonius were not relying on any Biblical scriptures when they wrote their volumes because far as the historical record indicates there weren't any scriptures. They were hearing stories circulating around the 'hood about a leader of a group calling themselves Chrestians OR they acquired this name from other people because of who they were purported to be following. When Tacitus wrote his Annals he included a tidbit about Nero blaming this group called Chrestians for the fire that burned Rome and that the group was called Chrestians after its leader's name who "suffered the extreme penalty" under Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was an extremely cruel procurator and likely crucified thousands of criminals, many of them likely seditionists against Rome who had followings. Why do nearly all Christian historians make the giant leap to this person being Jesus?
Because they have heard this assumption for 2000 years over and over and over. When a conclusion has been reached for which there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant it then that conclusion falls under the heading of "PROPAGANDA" and Christians were master propagandists when it came to inventing stories to push their faith further ahead than the others their faith was competing against. For example, we know for a fact that the earliest copy of Annals that survived dates from about the 9th Century. It had passed through innumerable Christian hands by then. Someone, we don't know who--could have been a Christian or it could have been a secular historian--changed the "e" in Chrestians to "i" to make "Chrestians" look like "Christians". We have the proof:
Was it an innocent correction or a nefarious attempt to bolster belief in Jesus? We have no idea from the available information. So naturally Christians like Michael Way will insist the word was originally Christians while unbelievers like myself will go with what looks more like the likely case and go with Chrestians. We don't have Tacitus' original copy so we can't prove it either way. All we know for certain is that it was changed.
Also the dates for the gospels is incorrect. The date for the gospels is 40-90 years after Jesus. Mark at its earliest had to have been written 70-75 CE because it has a passage of Jesus predicting the destruction of the Jewish temple and we know that could not have been written by anyone before the event. But once again, Christian propaganda wins the day so the date 65 CE gets bandied about.
That's the truth. You'll ALWAYS get the truth from an atheist because that's all we have--the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Just so the audience is clear: Tacitus and Suetonius were not relying on any Biblical scriptures when they wrote their volumes because far as the historical record indicates there weren't any scriptures. They were hearing stories circulating around the 'hood about a leader of a group calling themselves Chrestians OR they acquired this name from other people because of who they were purported to be following. When Tacitus wrote his Annals he included a tidbit about Nero blaming this group called Chrestians for the fire that burned Rome and that the group was called Chrestians after its leader's name who "suffered the extreme penalty" under Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was an extremely cruel procurator and likely crucified thousands of criminals, many of them likely seditionists against Rome who had followings. Why do nearly all Christian historians make the giant leap to this person being Jesus?
Because they have heard this assumption for 2000 years over and over and over.
In what language? As I said, I'm looking for a timeline and of course I need the science in evolution of language for this timeline.
First came the Neanderthal, which did not speak; the science says that modern man and the Neanderthal were in existence at the same time. Modern man could speak but they didn't have a written language; they drew (what year) pictures instead. Then modern man developed a written language, when? What language was the first one? When they put down their thoughts in this language they wrote it on cuneiform tablets and papyrus.
"The Aleppo Codex is an especially valuable witness to the early Masoretic textual tradition associated with Rabbi Aaron Ben Asher, a famous grammarian and scribe of the tenth century. It was written around A.D. 920 in Palestine, probably in the vicinity of Tiberias, where Jewish scholars developed the system of vowel pointing which was to become the standard Masoretic system of vocalization." (my emphasis)
Vowels hadn't found their place in the written form of language and now there is an issue with an 'e' vs and 'i'? Did Tacitus and Suetonius know there was a difference? Or was there a difference at the time of the word?Since there were Christians in the Old Testament (church came before the NT) to which 'hood leader' are they referring?
Because here is the deal with that. Before the written word, their were hieroglyphics and the common man was not allowed into the caves, temples or public monuments, where these hieroglyphics were found. Religion, culture, traditions and rituals (sacrifice) were whatever the Pharaoh (high priests) said (of gods and/or goddesses) it would be. The high priest was the go between, between the people and their gods and it was believed by the people that the gods spoke to the Pharaohs. (it could be worse today, especially within the area of sacrifices within early religions)
The man called Jesus, changed (His story is the foundation for freedom of religion) all of that --- so what I see in the struggle for those (monarchs) in power to remain in power, was possibly the biggest Watergate this world in it inception ever had. The historians are basing their conclusion (facts) on text that the scholars (translation) interpreted from the first text as they were written. So your issue is not with historians, but with the scholars (accounting of facts) of the ancient text, where as, the stories as it happened were much older than the written word accounts of the events. (what was at stake in the first centuries A.D. when these cuneiform tablets and papyrus made their debut?) The scholars of the era are the ones that made the leap that the name of the Messiah, was Jesus Christ. (where as, His own house didn't want to lay claim)
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 09-16-2022 at 09:43 AM..
Reason: last ( )
Was the passage or passages, available at the time of Tacitus or Suetonius?
Probably, although we can not be sure. Historically we can date the gospels between 70 and 150 AD, but precise dates in between are more difficult. Many Christians naturally date them earlier, but I am talking as an amateur historian. I date Luke and John as early 2nd century AD, with Mark sometime between 80 and 100 AD, with Matthew between Mark and Luke. So the basic text would have been indirectly available to Tacitus.
" ... the first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) Imagine it! If the writing of the New Testament had been begun at the same time as the U.S. Constitution, we wouldn't see a final product until the year 2076! The four Gospels were written from thirty to sixty years after Jesus' death and resurrection. In the interim, the Church relied on oral tradition-the accounts of eyewitnesses-as well as scattered pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. Most churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. As the eyewitnesses of Christ's life and teachings began to die, the Apostles wrote as they were guided by the Holy Spirit, in order to preserve and solidify the scattered written and oral tradition. Because the Apostles expected Christ to return soon, it seems they did not have in mind that these gospel accounts and apostolic letters would in time be collected into a new Bible. During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture." (emphasis is mine)
Yes, there was disagreement, but the basic texts were decided sometime between 150 and 170 AD, when some church power collected many of the texts we now use to refute Marcion's gospel. After that, it was just fine tuning.
In what language? As I said, I'm looking for a timeline and of course I need the science in evolution of language for this timeline.
First came the Neanderthal, which did not speak; the science says that modern man and the Neanderthal were in existence at the same time. Modern man could speak but they didn't have a written language; they drew (what year) pictures instead. Then modern man developed a written language, when? What language was the first one? When they put down their thoughts in this language they wrote it on cuneiform tablets and papyrus.
"The Aleppo Codex is an especially valuable witness to the early Masoretic textual tradition associated with Rabbi Aaron Ben Asher, a famous grammarian and scribe of the tenth century. It was written around A.D. 920 in Palestine, probably in the vicinity of Tiberias, where Jewish scholars developed the system of vowel pointing which was to become the standard Masoretic system of vocalization." (my emphasis)
Vowels hadn't found their place in the written form of language and now there is an issue with an 'e' vs and 'i'? Did Tacitus and Suetonius know there was a difference? Or was there a difference at the time of the word?Since there were Christians in the Old Testament (church came before the NT) to which 'hood leader' are they referring?
Because here is the deal with that. Before the written word, their were hieroglyphics and the common man was not allowed into the caves, temples or public monuments, where these hieroglyphics were found. Religion, culture, traditions and rituals (sacrifice) were whatever the Pharaoh (high priests) said (of gods and/or goddesses) it would be. The high priest was the go between, between the people and their gods and it was believed by the people that the gods spoke to the Pharaohs. (it could be worse today, especially within the area of sacrifices within early religions)
The man called Jesus, changed (His story is the foundation for freedom of religion) all of that --- so what I see in the struggle for those (monarchs) in power to remain in power, was possibly the biggest Watergate this world in it inception ever had. The historians are basing their conclusion (facts) on text that the scholars (translation) interpreted from the first text as they were written. So your issue is not with historians, but with the scholars (accounting of facts) of the ancient text, where as, the stories as it happened were much older than the written word accounts of the events. (what was at stake in the first centuries A.D. when these cuneiform tablets and papyrus made their debut?) The scholars of the era are the ones that made the leap that the name of the Messiah, was Jesus Christ. (where as, His own house didn't want to lay claim)
I will get back to you on this.
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.
