Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism causes creationism

1…910121415…24

Comments

  • #332
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I think he has realised we are unsavable and has given up.
    I prefer to be optimistic -- perhaps Newsite's spent a while working his/her way through that Tacitus quote up above and is now trying to figure out how to tell his/her mum + dad that (s)he's now an atheist :)


  • #333
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    robindch wrote: »
    I prefer to be optimistic -- perhaps Newsite's spent a while working his/her way through that Tacitus quote up above and is now trying to figure out how to tell his/her mum + dad that (s)he's now an atheist :)

    I was too busy having fun not posting on Boards :)

    I was actually thinking of Antiquities rather than the Annals of Tacitus. When I said 'a few decades' after Christ died, I meant Tacitus was born a few decades after Jesus died, my bad.

    My point is that Tacitus may have called Christianity a 'superstition', but nowhere does he mention that Christ's resurrection (which forms the core of this 'superstition') must have been a fake. Nor does anyone else from that period, that I can see, curiously.


  • #334
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Newsite wrote: »
    I was too busy having fun not posting on Boards :)

    I was actually thinking of Antiquities rather than the Annals of Tacitus. When I said 'a few decades' after Christ died, I meant Tacitus was born a few decades after Jesus died, my bad.

    My point is that Tacitus may have called Christianity a 'superstition', but nowhere does he mention that Christ's resurrection (which forms the core of this 'superstition') must have been a fake. Nor does anyone else from that period, that I can see, curiously.

    It was pretty self-evident…


  • #335
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Newsite wrote: »
    My point is that Tacitus may have called Christianity a 'superstition', but nowhere does he mention that Christ's resurrection (which forms the core of this 'superstition') must have been a fake. Nor does anyone else from that period, that I can see, curiously.

    And no one disputes that L. Ron Hubbard left his physical body.
    It's a historical fact.

    So then they've another thing in common with a false religion.


  • #336
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    And did anyone else notice that nobody said that the Pilgrims AND the Native Americans were both alien species!?
    So it's true! They came to earth for a interplanetary peace treaty!


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Way to try and cover your arse Newsite :P


  • #338
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Newsite wrote: »
    I was too busy having fun not posting on Boards :)

    I was actually thinking of Antiquities rather than the Annals of Tacitus. When I said 'a few decades' after Christ died, I meant Tacitus was born a few decades after Jesus died, my bad.

    My point is that Tacitus may have called Christianity a 'superstition', but nowhere does he mention that Christ's resurrection (which forms the core of this 'superstition') must have been a fake. Nor does anyone else from that period, that I can see, curiously.


    Hello again Newsite, as far as I can see you argument boils down to just two elements or variations thereof- (1) the bible is 2000 years old and this seems to give it some validity (2) there are no contemporaneous accounts disproving the main events and personae mentioned in the bible.

    is that a fair summation ?


  • #339
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And yet thousands of people continue to follow it.

    So your argument that people don't follow religions that have been discredited is demonstrably false.

    Eh what? Where did I argue that people don't follow discredited religions?! I said that I agree that people are frequently fooled by false belief systems. In fact this might be the third time saying it.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    All your arguments for why Christianity is true, such as saying that it has to be true because people won't follow a discredited religion, and it has to be true because people don't die for a discredited religion, have been demonstrated to be false based on known examples from other religions.

    How many dead Scientologists? What I'm talking about are those who died for Christianity who were in a position to know whether it was a lie or not. Can you say the same about Scientology followers? How about Jim Jones?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Don't get pissed off at us because these other religions obliterate your arguments about human nature and what humans will or won't do.

    No need to get on the high horse there. Trust me when I say that forum posts on the internets do not really have the capacity to piss me off :) Which only makes the assertion I made all the stronger.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    You can use "historial analysis" to determine that L. Ron Hubbard was a real person, that he taught what he taught, and that thousands followed him.

    In fact there is far more historial support for L. Ron Hubbard, yet we both agree that Scientology is nonsense and made up.

    Again you may be missing the point. I'm referring to historical analysis of evidence and testimony, backed up in many cases by scholarly research (much of which gets the stamp of approval from confirmed atheist scholars, mind). How can you possibly compare this to the fact that Hubbard was a 'real person'? The claims that Hubbard made are patently made up because there is zilcho evidence for them.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Which are the books of the religion. Imagine if you only read the Scientologists account of Scientology.

    Everyone agrees L. Ron Hubbard existed. Does that mean Scientology is true?

    A bit facetious here no? I'm just gonna have to ask you to not bring Scientology into it any more for the reasons I've pointed out already....
    Zombrex wrote: »
    You have no idea if it was or wasn't refuted. The only surviving documentation is the religions own propaganda.

    So you don't think it's odd you don't have too much material from that time refuting it no?!
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Would you expect to find refutations to Scientology on the official Scientology website? No, of course not. So why do you expect to find refutations in the New Testament?

    Not talking about the New Testament?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    What we do know is that even if it was refuted it wouldn't have mattered to the true believers.

    But it wasn't refuted, and yes it wouldn't because the earliest believers were in a position to easily find out if it was refuted, or could be refuted? You know, there were thousands of people living back then in 33AD or so?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Er no, as we keep saying. The Romans could have dragged Jesus' body through the streets (though why you think they would bother I've no idea, I doubt the Romans knew of the myth that he had risen from the dead until months or even years after the resurrection) and people would still have believed.

    Now this is where I think our discussion probably collapses, because He rose from the dead and appeared to the apostles almost immediately after the resurrection. They then went and spread the word. This was in 33AD. Pontius Pilate ruled from 28AD - 36AD. So he ruled for 4 years after Jesus died. Wouldn't he have had something to say about these resurrection stories at the time?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Just like with every other religion in the world, facts mean very little.

    Again this is where I would fear for the calibre of discussion going on here. 'Facts mean very little' ? Given it is impossible to discuss on a scientific basis, and historical analysis and analysis of written testimonial is necessarily based on facts, or those established as such, you're kinda putting yourself in a bind here, no?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Provide one single source for the resurrection other than the Bible. Not a reference saying Jesus existed (L Ron Hubbard existed), but a non-Biblical account of the resurrection and the events around it.

    I know you are a hardened atheist, but you do realise that many prominent secular historians and learned men completely affirm the Bible as authentic and reliable? And that as a large body of work with such affirmations, it does deserve even the smallest modicum of respect as someone who (until now anyway) comes across as rational and intelligent?

    Howard Vos, researcher {and Emeritus Professor of History and Archaeology from The King's College in New York} declares that: 'From the standpoint of literary evidence the only logical conclusion is that the case for the reliability of the New Testament is infinitely stronger than that for any other record of antiquity.'
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Recorded it for what reason? Jesus was utterly unspecial to the Romans.

    If a prisoner in Mount Joy declares to his inmates that his is the Son of God do you expect historians of Ireland to write down that no actually he isn't so 2,000 years later his followers can't say no one objected?

    Em no, but glad you bring up this example. If I'm in Mountjoy, and I die, and then 30 years later someone writes an essay saying I came back to life and that my body disappeared from the funeral home, and this is taken to be truthful and the idea spreads, I certainly would expect plenty of people who would have been alive when I was alive, and would have met me, to come forward and declare it a pack of lies!!
    Zombrex wrote: »
    In fact there is no record of Jesus at all in Roman records.

    And? Answer me this one question, Zombrex - do you believe that Caesar conquered Gaul?


  • #340
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    marienbad wrote: »
    Hello again Newsite, as far as I can see you argument boils down to just two elements or variations thereof- (1) the bible is 2000 years old and this seems to give it some validity (2) there are no contemporaneous accounts disproving the main events and personae mentioned in the bible.

    is that a fair summation ?

    No it isn't. But 2) is of definite importance! I have yet to hear from any atheists on the fact that we aren't seeing accounts disproving or discrediting the main events. Not to mention the fact that the resurrection (and the empty tomb) is widely accepted as truth!!
    Concerning the value of the presence of 'hostile witnessess' in applying the 'cross-examination' principle to the proclamation of the resurrection, law professor Dr. John Montgomery writes '...this rule underscores the reliability of testimony to Christ's resurrection which was presented contemporaneously in the synagogues-in the very teeth of opposition, among hostile cross-examiners who would certainly have destroyed the case for Christianity had the facts been otherwise.'

    F.F.Bruce, the Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records being scrutinized by vocal opponents: 'Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnessess in the audience would have served as a further corrective.'

    There are three steps in historical testimony: observation, recollection and recording. The bitter enemies of this new movement centering around Christ were ready to challenge any over-zealous follower who might have wanted to add a miracle or to sweeten up a story to make Christ more appealing. These 'hostile witnessess' were ready to correct any distortion in the 'observation, recollection and recording' of all that Jesus 'did and taught.'

    Stan Gundry, theologian, asks, 'Is is possible that they would have allowed false statements to pass as facts concerning his life which would have opened itself to ridicule if it had created such stories to perpetuate itself.'


  • #341
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Newsite wrote: »
    No it isn't. But 2) is of definite importance! I have yet to hear from any atheists on the fact that we aren't seeing accounts disproving or discrediting the main events. Not to mention the fact that the resurrection (and the empty tomb) is widely accepted as truth!!

    Ok then, so were you not saying the survival of the bible compared to other books/records accorded it some validity ?.

    On the 2nd point concerning the disproving of the main events, I am sorry Newsite but this is from the ''are you still beating you wife'' school of history.

    The question you should be asking is why is an event such as a crucified man returning from the dead and ascending to heaven forty days later not mentioned in multiplicity of sources from that time. Surely it would have been the wonder of the age ?


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    marienbad wrote: »
    Ok then, so were you not saying the survival of the bible compared to other books/records accorded it some validity ?.

    I did say that, and it is true. But it was one whole sentence in my argument I believe.
    marienbad wrote: »
    On the 2nd point concerning the disproving of the main events, I am sorry Newsite but this is from the ''are you still beating you wife'' school of history.

    Ya really think so? Oppressed, annoying Christians claim guy we 'took care of' actually tricked us and managed to rise from the dead? Oh we'll just see about that. Where was he buried again? Right, let's go get the body and see what folks think about that. Oh no, wait.......
    marienbad wrote: »
    The question you should be asking is why is an event such as a crucified man returning from the dead and ascending to heaven forty days later not mentioned in multiplicity of sources from that time. Surely it would have been the wonder of the age ?

    Nope, on the contrary. In fact the reason it wasn't a wonder of the age is down to all the same reasons that you and loads of others are questioning it now. You'd be the exact same if this was 60AD and we were talking face to face :)


  • #343
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Newsite wrote: »
    I did say that, and it is true. But it was one whole sentence in my argument I believe.



    By this logic, Buddhism has a lot more validity than Christianity or even Judaism because it's a much much older religion, and unlike the Bible/Torah, the Buddha himself actually wrote down the core "beliefs" and the path to enlightenment.

    So, sup with that?
    Do you ignore it because it's a different religion?


  • #344
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Newsite wrote: »
    My point is that Tacitus may have called Christianity a 'superstition', but nowhere does he mention that Christ's resurrection (which forms the core of this 'superstition') must have been a fake.
    You do realize that if someone refers to something as a "superstition", they mean it's false, don't you?


  • #345
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Newsite wrote: »
    I have yet to hear from any atheists on the fact that we aren't seeing accounts disproving or discrediting the main events. Not to mention the fact that the resurrection (and the empty tomb) is widely accepted as truth!!
    Jesus Christ on a bloody tricycle! :rolleyes:

    Do you remember that bit of Tacitus that I produce above? The one that pissed over the NT accounts?

    Did you read it? Did you understand it?


  • #346
    Ciaran0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 213 ✭✭Ciaran0


    Newsite wrote: »

    You also seem to be forgetting that the early Christians wrote nothing down! Few of them could even read, let alone write.

    Lack of education leads to superstition?


  • #347
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Newsite wrote: »
    I did say that, and it is true. But it was one whole sentence in my argument I believe.



    Ya really think so? Oppressed, annoying Christians claim guy we 'took care of' actually tricked us and managed to rise from the dead? Oh we'll just see about that. Where was he buried again? Right, let's go get the body and see what folks think about that. Oh no, wait.......



    Nope, on the contrary. In fact the reason it wasn't a wonder of the age is down to all the same reasons that you and loads of others are questioning it now. You'd be the exact same if this was 60AD and we were talking face to face :)

    Ok then let us skip over the age of the bible then, it is no great matter.

    You are according the Christian sect way too much importance here Newsite. In Roman times it was just another tiny breakaway sect in a world with thousands of sects , all claiming miraculous happenings. The Romans were'nt even aware or interested in most of them.

    Now a dead guy walking around for 40 days after he was crucified ! Now that just might have grabbed their attention, if only to carry out the sentence again and this time to do it properly, yet no mention of it yet again in the annals , no mention of the troops dispatched to track this criminal down ,the costs incurred , the excitement of the people !

    One would have assumed that Jesus, if he really wanted to advance the cause, would have presented himself to Pontius Pilate and said '' Hello remember the guy you crucified last Friday ? I'm back . As for you - you are going to hell in a handbasket and that bitch of a daughter that demanded John's head is going with you, AND I am going to have a fcuking nazi write an opera about her ! So there. '' But no , alas history is silent Newsite.

    It is not that history does not disprove any of the events in the bible that is significant ,it is the fact that it dos'nt even mention them .

    You seem to have an issue with this concept.


  • #348
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Newsite wrote: »
    How many dead Scientologists? What I'm talking about are those who died for Christianity who were in a position to know whether it was a lie or not. Can you say the same about Scientology followers? How about Jim Jones?
    Yes. Jim Jones died.
    Several high ranking Scientologists including L. Ron Hubbard's wife were arrested and sentenced to prison.
    Joseph Smith was shot out of a window by a lynch mob.
    Marshall Applewhite founded the Heaven's Gate cult and committed suicide with the rest of his followers.
    The adherents of Falun Gong face legal and physical persecution in China to this very day.

    And the list goes on and on.
    Another feature you think distinguishes Christianity, but is in fact common to religions you think are false for the exact same reasons Christianity are false.

    But like all the other points you don't want to deal with, you'll ignore this point.


  • #349
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    marienbad wrote: »
    . . . Now a dead guy walking around for 40 days after he was crucified ! Now that just might have grabbed their attention, if only to carry out the sentence again and this time to do it properly, yet no mention of it yet again in the annals , no mention of the troops dispatched to track this criminal down ,the costs incurred , the excitement of the people !

    One would have assumed that Jesus, if he really wanted to advance the cause, would have presented himself to Pontius Pilate and said '' Hello remember the guy you crucified last Friday ? I'm back . As for you - you are going to hell in a handbasket and that bitch of a daughter that demanded John's head is going with you, AND I am going to have a fcuking nazi write an opera about her ! So there. '' But no , alas history is silent Newsite.

    It is not that history does not disprove any of the events in the bible that is significant ,it is the fact that it dos'nt even mention them.

    You seem to have an issue with this concept.
    Far be it from me to line up with Newsite, but on this occasion it may be you who is struggling a little bit here, marienbad.

    The various events which you mention here, which are absent from the historical record, are also absent from the biblical record.

    For example, you “would have assumed” that the Jesus would have presented himself to Pilate and engaged in a bit of Clint Eastwood-type backchat. But of course nothing in scripture or the Christian tradition suggests that he did anything of the kind, and the failure of the historical record to mention this amusing encounter tells us more about the reliability of your assumptions than it does about the coherence of the Christian faith.

    Likewise, you point out that if Jesus has been “walking around for 40 days after he was crucified”, this would have come to the attention of the authorities and they would have taken some action and the historical record would contain some trace of it.

    All we can conclude from this is that Jesus wasn’t “walking around for 40 days after he was crucified” in a way which would command official notice, and that conclusion is completely consistent with scripture and tradition. The appearances of Christ described in scripture are limited in number, brief in duration and entirely private. They take place indoors, or in secluded locations, and only involve people who are unlikely to want to dob him in to the authorities. More to the point, in the scriptural account people who knew Jesus well in life frequently fail to recognize him in these appearances. There is nothing to suggest that anyone outside the circle of Jesus’s followers, even if he had witnessed one of these appearances, would have seen anything unusual. A bloke comes and talks to some other blokes, who seem initially confused, and then rather surprised. You seriously expect this to turn up in the procurator’s reports to Rome? Even if word of this reached the procurator, which I think highly unlikely, you think he’s going to torpedo his own career by being seen to take it seriously?

    You can argue, I think very strongly, that accounts of the appearance of the risen Jesus are difficult to believe because they are at variance with everything we know, and everything we have experienced, about the reality and finality of death.

    But to argue that they are difficult to believe because they don’t turn up in the historical record, you first of all have to rewrite them in a way that makes them look like something that would turn up in the historical record. And once you’ve done that, of course, you’re attacking a straw man.


  • #350
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    So, what you're basically saying is this.

    Because History doesn't say anything about him after the Crucifixion and during the time of the supposed ressurection, then the Bible is more valid?

    That's very twisted logic.


  • #351
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Though of course it is not just Jesus who was meant to have arisen but "many" other people too according to Matthew.

    Now I can understand one person going under the radar and making no impact on historical record, but if a large number of graves were generally popping open and ejecting fully resurrected corpses you would be stretching it a bit to suggest all of these went under the radar too? Especially given Matthew claims they "appeared to many" and were clearly intent on making their return very well publicised.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Newsite wrote: »
    I'm referring to historical analysis of evidence and testimony [...] But it wasn't refuted, and yes it wouldn't because the earliest believers were in a position to easily find out if it was refuted, or could be refuted? [...] scientific basis, and historical analysis and analysis of written testimonial [...] many prominent secular historians and learned men completely affirm the Bible as authentic and reliable? [...] affirmations [...] do you believe that Caesar conquered Gaul?
    I'm intrigued by these excerpts here, since the ideas, and particularly the vocabulary used to express them, have appeared repeatedly here on A+A, mostly from people who have acquired fundamentalist christian beliefs very recently.

    Have you done the Alpha Course, or something similar, by any chance?


  • #353
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    Jesus Christ on a bloody tricycle! :rolleyes:

    Using Newsite's logic, because no-one from the time period wrote that Jesus didn't go around on a tricycle, we now have to believe that he did go around on a tricycle.


  • #354
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    robindch wrote: »
    Jesus Christ on a bloody tricycle! :rolleyes:

    Do you remember that bit of Tacitus that I produce above? The one that pissed over the NT accounts?

    Did you read it? Did you understand it?

    Behave yourself would you.

    I read it before you ever produced it here, and it does't 'piss' over anything, as your lack of expression compels you to say. He IS REPORTING on the account of events as he found them. He's not making any assertions or refuting anything that happened. Yes it was treated as a superstition by many, including you right now, a couple of thousand years later. He hated the idea of it, as you hate the idea of it. What of it?

    Edit: The original passage I had in mind, was by Josephus (Antiquities).


  • #355
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm intrigued by these excerpts here, since the ideas, and particularly the vocabulary used to express them, have appeared repeatedly here on A+A, mostly from people who have acquired fundamentalist christian beliefs very recently.

    Have you done the Alpha Course, or something similar, by any chance?

    No haven't done that or anything like it. I just read a somewhat battered copy of the Bible I had since I was 13, but never read seriously before.


  • #356
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    marienbad wrote: »
    Ok then let us skip over the age of the bible then, it is no great matter.

    You are according the Christian sect way too much importance here Newsite. In Roman times it was just another tiny breakaway sect in a world with thousands of sects , all claiming miraculous happenings. The Romans were'nt even aware or interested in most of them.

    Now a dead guy walking around for 40 days after he was crucified ! Now that just might have grabbed their attention, if only to carry out the sentence again and this time to do it properly, yet no mention of it yet again in the annals , no mention of the troops dispatched to track this criminal down ,the costs incurred , the excitement of the people !

    One would have assumed that Jesus, if he really wanted to advance the cause, would have presented himself to Pontius Pilate and said '' Hello remember the guy you crucified last Friday ? I'm back . As for you - you are going to hell in a handbasket and that bitch of a daughter that demanded John's head is going with you, AND I am going to have a fcuking nazi write an opera about her ! So there. '' But no , alas history is silent Newsite.

    It is not that history does not disprove any of the events in the bible that is significant ,it is the fact that it dos'nt even mention them .

    You seem to have an issue with this concept.

    As the poster mentions above, this all shows a certain naivete of which I have been already accused myself :) Do you really think Jesus would have come back and went about things that way and spoke in that way?!

    There is a consistency of approach throughout the NT - just as He didn't make a big deal of the miracles He performed - and actively told people not to tell others about them, just as He spoke plainly to the apostles but in parables to the crowd - He wouldn't have appeared and reported back to the masses in this way either.


  • #357
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Oh that Jesus, he's just like Sally Morgan in sandals.


  • #358
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,583 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Newsite wrote: »
    There is a consistency of approach throughout the NT - just as He didn't make a big deal of the miracles He performed - and actively told people not to tell others about them, just as He spoke plainly to the apostles but in parables to the crowd - He wouldn't have appeared and reported back to the masses in this way either.
    It's this consistency and approach that leads many of here to the conclusion that Jesus, if the existed as one man, was just that - a man.

    This makes a lot more sense than having the Creator of Time, Matter and the Universe sending his "son" to give the world a message in that manner (which, for me at least, has always been the biggest elephant in the room for the Christian story).


  • #359
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Newsite wrote: »
    Behave yourself would you

    ...

    You do realise he[Tacitus] wrote about Christ in Antiquities as well, yeah?

    You what?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus


  • #360
    Newsite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Newsite


    pH wrote: »
    You what?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

    Sorry, I meant Josephus.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Newsite wrote: »
    Sorry, I meant Josephus.

    Well sorry as well, but that doesn't work - you were defending your view of Tacitus' works by saying he'd written about Christ in Antiquities as well yeah?.

    How are the writings of Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" relevant to the current discussion on Tacitus?


Advertisement