Toto

This is not the standards that are used to judge historical truth.

If they are your standards, I know a few Senators with a used war they would like to sell you . . .

Sheshonq

If you *actually* wondered what critics have to say, you would have used the Search function on this message board to find out.

The truth is that you aren't the least bit interested in knowing what critics say. You're just under the delusion that you have scored some kind of point, when the reality is the skeptics knew about this oft-misused Tacitus citation long before you stumbled onto it.

1. The TF in Josephus is a later Christian insertion.

2. If you're going to try and use the Talmud, maybe you should read ALL of what it says about Christ first before blindly trusting your third-rate apologetic source.

Cesc

What do you mean by "this" exactly?

I see.

mountainman

And there are other critics such as JOHN WILSON ROSS (1818-1887) who argues that Tacitus entire is the 15th century forgery of Poggio Bracciolini.

Or indeed the books one to thirteen of Ammianus Marcellinus, which covered from the fourth century, the history of events from Tacitus from 92 CE until the mid fourth century -- missing the all important history of Constantine in which the christian religion was actually invented as a top-down-emperor and pontifex maximus cult


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

sugarhitman

Yeah wasnt it Roger Pearce who also said that there were to many Fraudulent theories on this site as well, theories, that deny these outside testimonies? I agree.


It seems that all outside references to Christ are forgeries by christians.

Pliny also testify to tortuing christians on behalf of the Roman government. Tacitus also hints at this persecution.....and yet critics believes all these things did not take place......which is remarkable.

chrisengland

It would be interesting to see what scholars think about this Tacitus document not just critics.
Chris

Toto

Read it here on google books.

The case for this being a forgery is laid out here

chrisengland

Go careful Sugarhitman sometimes they think the documents may be forged because they have evidence that it may be. It's not always a conspiricy theory.
I suggest you look up these topics first for abit longer.
Chris

sugarhitman

I mean look how he attacks fictions in his "History" and accuses Christianity as being fiction as well. If the history itself is fiction (that Jesus's death was fiction as well as His existence) he would have said so. It is very obvious that he is a shrewd historian not given to fictions.

Sheshonq

1. Roger Pearse is stuck on manuscripts to the exclusion of any contrary evidence or other methods of historical discovery/investigation. And like you, when confronted with flaws in his worldview, he puts his fingers in his ears and refuses to answer the tough questions. So if Roger Pearse says that a position is gaining popularity, it's more likely that it is actually losing popularity.

2. Who cares if you agree with him? What do you know about the topic, and why should we take notice of your (ahem) opinion?

Who said that?

Also wrong.