Is a good atheist better then a bad christian?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Josephus was born 100 years after "Jesus" died. All second-hand accounts, at best. Most likely oral fables developed over the previous century. Next? |
Anonymous
Tacitus tells us: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations called “Christians” by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origins, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out, not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. At this point in the Annals, Tacitus reveals what he thinks about Rome: “Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.” Tacitus continues: Accordingly, an arrest was made of all who pled guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt to serve as nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a chariot. Hence, even for criminals, who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed. In this selection from the Annals, we can observe a number of things. We see one of the first references outside of the New Testament to Christ, wherein His life is dated relative to Pontius Pilate and reference is made to His death by crucifixion. We also see the attitude of the Romans toward Christians and the intense, cruel persecution they faced at the hands of Nero https://www.5minutesinchurchhistory.com/tacitus/ Do you have sources that states Tacitus was a Christian or sympathetic to Christianity? |
Anonymous
|
Tacitus
Read in another language Watch this page Edit For other uses, see Tacitus (disambiguation). Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (/?tæs?t?s/; Classical Latin: [?tak?t?s]; c.? 56 – c.? 120 AD) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians.[1][2] He lived in what has been called the Silver Age of Latin literature, and is known for the brevity and compactness of his Latin prose, as well as for his penetrating insights into the psychology of power politics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus Do you even know who Tacitus was? |
Anonymous
I never claimed he was a Christian or sympathetic. I didn't even claim that what he wrote was false. Just that it's hearsay. Not actual evidence of historical Jesus. Who were his sources since it obviously wasn't his own account? |
Anonymous
Who were his sources? Since he wasn't alive during those events? |
Anonymous
Ancient history as a term refers to the aggregate of past events[1] from the beginning of writing and recorded human history and extending as far as the post-classical history. The phrase may be used either to refer to the period of time or the academic discipline. Historians have two major avenues which they take to better understand the ancient world: archaeology and the study of source texts. Primary sources are those sources closest to the origin of the information or idea under study.[10][11] Primary sources have been distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources.[12] Most of what is known of the ancient world comes from the accounts of antiquity's own historians. Although it is important to take into account the bias of each ancient author, their accounts are the basis for our understanding of the ancient past. Some of the more notable ancient writers include Herodotus, Thucydides, Arrian, Plutarch, Polybius, Sima Qian, Sallust, Livy, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus. A fundamental difficulty of studying ancient history is that recorded histories cannot document the entirety of human events, and only a fraction of those documents have survived into the present day.[23] Furthermore, the reliability of the information obtained from these surviving records must be considered.[23][24] Few people were capable of writing histories, as literacy was not widespread in almost any culture until long after the end of ancient history.[25] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history Tacitus and Josephus are extremely important and valuable historians. You disregard them because they wrote of Christ. Tacitus sources: Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the sessions of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as those of Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen[by whom?] as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore before he had proof-read) his work. Tacitus cites some of his sources directly, among them Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder, who had written Bella Germaniae and a historical work which was the continuation of that of Aufidius Bassus. Tacitus also uses collections of letters (epistolarium). He also took information from exitus illustrium virorum. These were a collection of books by those who were antithetical to the emperors. They tell of sacrifices by martyrs to freedom, especially the men who committed suicide. While he places no value on the Stoic theory of suicide and views suicides as ostentatious and politically useless, Tacitus often gives prominence to speeches made by those about to commit suicide, for example Cremutius Cordus' speech in Ann. IV, 34–35. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus I have no clue who you think you are to disregard 2 of the most important historians of antiquity. |
Anonymous
Again, why do you think atheists care "VERY much" what happens to them after they die? Do you think Apollo was a real person? He was in The Illiad, a major historical account. |
Anonymous
I would call this an ad hominem attack, trying to malign the author rather than address the points, but everything you posted about him shows he is a highly intelligent and incredibly accomplished person. But at least you read that my post was random. Ya want me to pick another? Or you could do it yourself. There's tons. |
Anonymous
1. Because they aren't primary accounts. They weren't even contemporary. 2. Because their accounts passed through many hands over the centuries. Many opportunities for errors or interpolations. I take them for what they are - accounts from 2000 years ago, written by men who weren't there and transcribed/translated by others over time. Could be true, but not actual proof. |
Anonymous
|
Here is an example of a historian misconstruing the facts:
The Civil War vs. War of Northern Aggression "The answers also reveal that almost 150 years after the first shots echoed at Fort Sumter, and as students in history survey classes begin their springtime Civil War lessons, there is no common blueprint for teaching the most divisive of U.S. conflicts. Although professional historians agree that the central cause of the war was the South's efforts to retain slavery, some amateur historians still fight about it. As a result, the way that students learn about the subject -- probably more than any other -- depends as much on their teacher's sensibilities as on state standards and textbooks." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/03/26/civil-war-still-being-fought-in-schools/e86c19b9-eedd-46dd-91d1-3f1f00e2f2f1/ Written histories are only as good as their authors (and transcribers/translators). Even the Bible has changed over time. https://www.npr.org/2011/07/17/138281522/how-bible-stories-evolved-over-the-centuries |
Anonymous
The most important historians of antiquity often did not live on the era or time they wrote about. You obviously don’t have a smudge of education. Does that mean the history books written today are all worthless because the historian or author didn’t live in the time he or she is writing about? And secondary sources are extremely important. It’s hard to find a 2,000 year old primary sources when 2,000 the majority of the population was illiterate and the common man was unable to read or write. A professor from MIT is the person you randomly chose to refute Tacitus and Josephus? |
Anonymous
I do have a "smudge" of education. And I also question sources. Modern historians conduct research and use credible sources for their interpretations of history. And they cite their sources. Who were the sources for Tacitus and Josephus? Yes, it's difficult to find primary sources from 2000 years ago. So it's very unlikely we will ever find actual evidence. Feel free to believe if you'd like, but it's unlikely to ever be truly proven that historical Jesus existed. You are confusing posters. I didn't post about the MIT professor. |
Anonymous
|
Historical accounts were written by men. Men make mistakes.
The bible was written by men. Men make mistakes. |
Anonymous
Not the PP, but no one is saying that here, that I have read.
Yes. |
Anonymous
But this was not your ordinary peasant -- this was a peasant who people started telling fantastical stories about 30 or so years after he died. And many of the these stories sound a lot like the dying and rising god/ born-of-a-virgin stories told in even more ancient cultures. |