Christianity

Pro continues to assert Tacitus brief paragraph as evidence that christ was crucified. There may be other supporting evidence of this, but Tacitus is not one of them. Tacitus, only tells us that the christians believed a man named christ suffered an extreme penalty under Pilate. That is all it tells us, and anything more can only be extrapolation at best or conjecture at worst. Pro believes that Tacitus contempt for christians would lead him to consult a roman or Jewish source, thus providing an "independent, unfavored confirmation of jesus' existence and basic historicity." That's just a false assumption. I hold scientology and mormonism in contempt. However that does not mean I would go to another source for information about what they believe. Obviously the best place to find out what a religious zealot believes is from their own mouths. And in fact I have done this, even inviting the mormons in to talk when they do their witnessing. The whole point of showing Tacitus' contempt for the christians, is to show that they were viewed in much the same light as many view scientology today. A cult. So why is that important? Because it proves that just because a religion gains converts does not imply, let alone prove, in any way the veracity of its dogma. Pro attempts to place the gospels on the same shelf as every other historical work from antiquity. I hate being so blunt, but that is just wishful thinking. Pro gives Plutarch's Parallel Lives as an example. A semi historical work. Why semi? Because it is full of miracles just like Pro Points out. He then says that historians do not dismiss the core historical truths. That does not help Pro's case in any way. Based on that statement, if we want to place the gospels in the same category as Plutarch's lives, or homers Iliad, we should completely discount all of the miracles performed in the gospels, including the resurrection. I do not see how being a "careful" historian is better, or more accurate, than a "critical" one. We have no original canonical documents from before the second century. Therefore, the only thing that we can know for certain is that the gospels were written down in the second century. Any other time placed on their them moves us into the land of assumption. That is why there is a debate over when these books were written, because different scholars interpret the remaining, inherent evidence, ie, style of writing, sacred abbreviations, and various other clues, differently. Pro had said earlier that Mark was seen by many as a collection of sayings, yet the passion narrative is just that, a linear story. I am not a paleo anything, but that to me would suggest that the narrative was added on later, especially considering it is impossible for us to know with complete certainty what mark originally contained, if our only source is a document from the second century. Legend. How many people believe JFK was assassinated by multiple shooters involved in a nearly global conspiracy? Mind you that Jim Garrison began his investigation in 1966, three years after the event and went to trial in 69. That is an incredible short time for a legend to develop, yet one did. Writing about yourself does not create a new person. That character would not be you, it would be a projection of you. If god divests himself of his power, then who was running the universe for the thirty some years he was jesus? I realize that this is facetious but it just really grinds my gears. If god had become man, then his sacrifice would be meaningless. Allowing your human nature to die but remaining divine is not the same as a man dying. A man knows he will not come back, but a divine creature knows that it is only temporary. That's a big difference. Reminds me of the question, can an all powerful being create a rock he cannot move? I realize the above two points aren't really about the historicity of chrisitanity, but I do believe they play an important part in the overall idea of an omnipotent being. I would like for Pro to present the bible verse where jesus explicitly claimed to be god. not in some vague "son of man" but, "I am god." I have to ask, why is a supernatural explanation more likely than a natural one? Wouldn't it make sense to completely eliminate any possible natural explanation before turning towards the supernatural one? Pro asked why, if the apostles stole the body, would they die for a lie they had created? People are willing to die for reasons much less significant than a religion. Never buried? I present to you John Domminic Crossan's work, The Historical Jesus. Crossan contends that there was no trial before Pilate or Herod and that christ's burial place was unknown and he may not have even been buried at all. This is a competing burial/death account that Pro has ignored. Pro called using a supernatural explanation a "rational inference." The mere fact that something is supernatural means that it defies rationality.