The Most Documented Person in Antiquity

[Parture]

Re: DD2014
http://www.youtube.com/user/DD2014


Why would it be impossible? Just because you can't fathom a Godless infinty does not make it impossible. He reveals Himself through Christ? That is not an explaintion of comprehension...That is an admission of ignorance. Saying JESUS, does not make it science. You actually need some testable scientific data.
What makes infinite regress impossible as was said is that you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. So any imagining you do of it is fantasy and delusional. All things sum up in Christ so all we can know of God is in Christ. It is testable and proven no man has ever been able to resurrect Himself. Only Jesus was able to. Praise the Lord!


Ok so I happened already, nothing you said suggests that is impossible. If you think it is inpossible then explain why. Infinite regression makes more sense then a magical sky king that sends himself on a suicide mission to save people from an eternity of pain for finite 'sins'. That is not science Jesus is not proven to exist, let alone become a zombie. Like I said, saying 'Jesus' does not prove a thing (other then you being a broken record) you need some scientific proof! You haven't happened already for if you had you would have come and gone already. Try to understand. Why ask why when it was already said you would have had an eternity before now to have come and gone? Therefore, nature needs a cause necessarily outside of itself, outside of time and space. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. Your infinite regress pie in the sky is 100% false and delusional. Your sin is not finite. You have decided for eternity to keep your sin.

Sin must get punished. One little sin eternally separates you from God, so unless Jesus takes that sin upon himself on the cross, all is lost. This is science, Jesus proven to exist, since he is the most documented person in antiquity. I don't know any historians who take your stance. Why would Jesus be a zombie like you? Not sure I follow that reasoning on your part. You're a broken record. We don't just say Jesus exists but show it since he is the most documented person in antiquity. Praise the Lord!

[DD2014]

You haven't happened already for if you had you would have come and gone already. Try to understand. Why ask why when it was already said you would have had an eternity before now to have come and gone?....Your infinite regress pie in the sky is 100% false and delusional.

I do understand, I don't think you do. If an infinite amount of universes have existed then statistically "I" would have existed an infinite number of times. My point is you have shown no proof that it is impossible to exist more then once, let alone an infinite amount times. You saying it is impossible does not make it so. You actually need to offer some proof.


...nature needs a cause necessarily outside of itself, outside of time and space.

Again you don't offer any valid reason that this is true. You base this entirely on assumptions.


Sin must get punished. One little sin eternally separates you from God, so unless Jesus takes that sin upon himself on the cross, all is lost.

This is a textbook case of circlular reasoning, you are arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. Logical fallacies like these don't help you in a debate.


This is science, Jesus proven to exist, since he is the most documented person in antiquity.

Sorry not science. Possibly somewhat historical, but science it is not.

The only remotely contemporary mention of Jesus is the Gospels themselves. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written no earlier than C.E. 70, and probably no later than C.E. 80. Otherwise, we have absolutely no mention of a historical Jesus. Paul, in his relatively undisputed works (those that hardly any scholars think are forgeries: Romans I and II Corinthians and Galatians) mentions a Jesus, but says nothing of when he lived other than some unspecified time in the past. These works of Paul predate the Gospel of Mark by between ten and fifteen years. When Paul does talk of "witnesses" to the resurrection, his "facts" differ significantly from those in the Gospel stories. Also, Paul's understanding of "resurrection" differs significantly from that described in some Gospel stories, his being very much like a phantom (a seed planted, turning out much differently than the original body), whereas the Gospels tend to describe a simple re-animation of the physical body. This brings us to the inaccuracy and mythology of the gospels. "Luke" revising "Matthew" which itself is a revision of "Mark", The later Gospel writers copied from the earlier Gospels, and many times "improved" and exaggerated the image of Jesus.

As for outside sourses, a very small number of Christian apologists still point to the so-called Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus (Antiquities 18:63-64). Most who've studied the arguments against the validity of this fragment tend to consider it a move of desperation on the part of those who still argue for its genuineness. Some Christian apologists also point to a writing by Cornelius Tacitus (circa C.E. 55-117 or later), who was governor of Asia in about C.E. 112. First, Tacitus was writing about Christians, not Christ. Secondly, from all appearances, he was simply parroting some other source, and never investigated beyond those sources. Finally, by the time he probably wrote this (C.E. 112 or so), the Gospel accounts had enjoyed wide circulation.
So the "documentation" you speak of differs little from any of the countless mythological texts in existance. What is quite amusing is that you would reject all of those in a millisecond yet they stand up to the same standard of proof as your "documentation" of Jesus.


Why would Jesus be a zombie like you?

So Jesus and I are the only people to be raised from the dead?

Sorry, my ill attempt at humor.

[Parture]

I do understand, I don't think you do. If an infinite amount of universes have existed then statistically "I" would have existed an infinite number of times. My point is you have shown no proof that it is impossible to exist more then once, let alone an infinite amount times. You saying it is impossible does not make it so. You actually need to offer some proof.
I've never made any arguments about whether you can only exist once. Your theories though do get more bizarre each time. Even still this version of you now would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.


Again you don't offer any valid reason that this is true. You base this entirely on assumptions.No. The evidence was already given. Why do you avoid it? As was said since nature needs a cause outside of itself since it can't always have existed, the cause must be non-natural and timeless, that is, outside the characteristics of nature. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator.


This is a textbook case of circlular reasoning, you are arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. Logical fallacies like these don't help you in a debate.Since we have proven the uncreated Creator and proven Jesus is God and that sin leads to death, all this evidence agrees with the fact one sin can eternally separate you from God, so the solution is needed like the right prescription for the proper diagnosis of your sickness.


Sorry not science. Possibly somewhat historical, but science it is not.Scientifically and historically it is a fact, no naturalistic explanation can be formulated to account for the data that even most skeptical scholars concede. Scientifically you would need to be able to reenact a plausible naturalistic scenario which shouldn't be too hard to do since this isn't rocket science.


The only remotely contemporary mention of Jesus is the Gospels themselves. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written no earlier than C.E. 70, and probably no later than C.E. 80. Otherwise, we have absolutely no mention of a historical Jesus. Paul, in his relatively undisputed works (those that hardly any scholars think are forgeries: Romans I and II Corinthians and Galatians) mentions a Jesus, but says nothing of when he lived other than some unspecified time in the past. These works of Paul predate the Gospel of Mark by between ten and fifteen years. When Paul does talk of "witnesses" to the resurrection, his "facts" differ significantly from those in the Gospel stories. Also, Paul's understanding of "resurrection" differs significantly from that described in some Gospel stories, his being very much like a phantom (a seed planted, turning out much differently than the original body), whereas the Gospels tend to describe a simple re-animation of the physical body. This brings us to the inaccuracy and mythology of the gospels. "Luke" revising "Matthew" which itself is a revision of "Mark", The later Gospel writers copied from the earlier Gospels, and many times "improved" and exaggerated the image of Jesus. Even if we grant you the late dating, it is still earlier than for anyone in antiquity, so you still lose. But your logic fails you on the late dating too. For Luke wrote Acts which is a biography of Paul but makes no mention of his death. He died around 65 AD in the Neronian persecutions along with the other Apostles. In a biography mentioning the person's death is sort of important. So that places Acts around 55 AD. Since Luke said Acts was part two of his former work of Luke, we can place Luke around 45 AD. And since Luke took from Mark we can place Mark around 35 AD just 2 years after the cross.

Paul met Peter and James about 5 years after the cross. His writings were very early I agree. Paul's account of the resurrection don't differ from the gospel record. If they did you could show it. Paul's understanding was physical as was for the Jews and for the other disciples. He gives a distinctly physical resurrection of Jesus. In Phil. 3 Paul says he is a "Pharisee" and the Pharisees taught the bodily resurrection of the dead. Otherwise Paul would be a Sadducee. So Paul is not teaching some wispy spirit. Paul said God will "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil. 3.21). Since the disciples spent time with Paul and would have talked about the physical resurrection of Jesus, Paul taught the same. "Paul realized that some members of the high council were Sadducees and some were Pharisees, so he shouted, "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, as were all my ancestors! And I am on trial because my hope is in the resurrection of the dead!" (Acts 23.6)

I am glad you couldn't show any evidence of the gospels copying from each other. There are so many differences, I don't know who copies like that.


As for outside sourses, a very small number of Christian apologists still point to the so-called Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus (Antiquities 18:63-64). Most who've studied the arguments against the validity of this fragment tend to consider it a move of desperation on the part of those who still argue for its genuineness. Some Christian apologists also point to a writing by Cornelius Tacitus (circa C.E. 55-117 or later), who was governor of Asia in about C.E. 112. First, Tacitus was writing about Christians, not Christ. Secondly, from all appearances, he was simply parroting some other source, and never investigated beyond those sources. Finally, by the time he probably wrote this (C.E. 112 or so), the Gospel accounts had enjoyed wide circulation. The part that almost all scholars agree is authentic still speaks of Jesus. Tacitus mentions Jesus also.

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html


So the "documentation" you speak of differs little from any of the countless mythological texts in existance. What is quite amusing is that you would reject all of those in a millisecond yet they stand up to the same standard of proof as your "documentation" of Jesus.There are no resurrections before Jesus. Jesus was the first, the one and only. Let me know if you find any.

Now then since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, you're still stuck, proving Jesus rose from the dead and that He is God.

Oral tradition is preserved in 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 when Paul goes over the gospel and some of the resurrection appearances from his meeting with Peter and James.

The doublestandard you have is that you want earlier writings of Jesus while the disciples' were walking with him for three years, yet you can't find any such writings of anyone in antiquity. Even if you got that, you would still be dissatisfied and want a birth certificate on the original papyrus from 6 BC when Jesus was born. And then that wouldn't be good enough. You would want to make sure his parents really lived. It would never end because your real motivation is hatred towards God.

You can assume the writings of Jesus were written at the moment when the events took place, unless and until you can find a good reason otherwise. Very contemporary! As to the other Christian writings and non-Christian sources, they are far more than anyone in antiquity and far closer dated to the timing of events. Take Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus. He had only 9 sources whereas Jesus had 45 sources within 150 years of their deaths.

I'll tell you where you are at. You need to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. If you don't then you are going to Hell.

I think the reason you don't have non-Christians writings about Jesus as soon as the disciples wrote about Jesus is because they didn't care. Neither did they care about other Messiahs at that time either but doesn't mean they didn't exist. Christianity was a very small sect of no significance at the time. Since Christians did not usurp themselves but turned the other cheek we were no threat and consequently of little interest to the world.

From such small beginnings to today, 1 in 3 people on the planet calls themselves a Christian though not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian. If only for the reason their conscience is speaking to them on some level, they feel the need to call themselves Christian. This is a powerful fact that cannot be denied, founded on a man whom they believed lived a sinless life as only God could.

Praise the Lord!

[DD2014]

I've never made any arguments about whether you can only exist once...Even still this version of you now would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

And like I said, if you want to disprove something you must offer evidence to dismiss the theory.


Even still this version of you now would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

You have shown not one reason that this can't happen.


No. The evidence was already given.

Then where is it? I have yet to see this "evidence". You offered no such evidence.


As was said since nature needs a cause outside of itself since it can't always have existed, the cause must be non-natural and timeless, that is, outside the characteristics of nature.

I have yet to hear any scientist to make this claim. Do you have any scientific facts to support a claim such as this?


...sin leads to death

Again you use a logical fallacy, this time it is an appeal to probability.

It is impossible to win a debate with childish tricks like this.


....no naturalistic explanation can be formulated to account for the data

And no natural explanation can be given for Zeus, Osiris, Krishna, Allah, ect. ect.
Yet people documented them and you don't belive in them.


...most skeptical scholars concede.

Just because scholars agree that it is not natural to come back to life, do not assume that they belive that it happened.

I can use this same argument to "prove" that all of the greek Gods exist.


For Luke wrote Acts which is a biography of Paul but makes no mention of his death.

Have you considered the possibility that "Luke" hade no knowlege of Paul's death?


Since Luke said Acts was part two of his former work of Luke, we can place Luke around 45 AD. But since Luke took from Mark we can place Mark around 35 AD just 2 years after the cross.

So you agree that Luke "took" from mark???

Given your position the argument can be made that since "Luke" is a revision of Mark (dated to no earlier than C.E. 70) and "Acts" is "part 2" it could not have been writen earlier then "Luke" which could not have been writen any earlier then "Mark". Which would put it after C.E. 70.


Scientifically you would need to be able to reenact a plausible naturalistic scenario which shouldn't be too hard to do since this isn't rocket science.


Ok, since no person can come back from the dead after 2 and a half days. I conclude that "ressurection" is impossible.


"Brothers, I am a Pharisee, as were all my ancestors! And I am on trial because my hope is in the resurrection of the dead!" (Acts 23.6)

Remember the only manuscripts that most scholars belive are not forgeries are Romans I and II Corinthians and Galatians. And if "Acts" was writen after C.E. 70 (which I have argued is more then valid) Then it is likely an addition, not what Paul actually stated. So you lose.


There are so many differences, I don't know who copies like that.

Lets list them shall we?

People that were not there.
People that are exagerating.
People That want to make money.
People that are liers.
People that don't know how to translate correctly.

I can do this all day. Do you want me to list more?


I am glad you couldn't show any evidence of the gospels copying from each other.

First of all, it is clear that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark's Gospel, because when their Gospels contain material found in Mark, the wording in Greek is almost identical as that in Mark's Gospel. This could not have happened if they were relying on oral sources, Aramaic sources, or even a common Greek source. Also, the Missing Block convincingly shows that Luke was relying on Mark's Gospel for everything he knew about the life of Jesus. So, the first clue, as to when Matthew and Luke were written, is to define when Mark was written. One of the internal clues to the date of Mark's Gospel is at Mark 13:2, where Jesus was said to prophesy the destruction of the Temple, an event that occurred in 70 CE. According to Mark, Jesus went on to predict the end of the world within the lifetime of his followers. If Jesus had really prophesied the destruction of the Temple, he would have been correct, but he would have been in error about the imminent end of times. Since it can not be accepted that Jesus made predictions that were capable of being in error, these prophecies must have originated with Mark, writing at a time when he would have known of the destruction or imminent destruction of the temple. Other references in this Gospel indicate that it could not have been written much after 70 CE. So, we can say that Mark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or very early in the 70s CE.


The part that almost all scholars agree is authentic still speaks of Jesus.
Tacitus mentions Jesus also.
To quote my self:

Tacitus was writing about Christians, not Christ. Secondly, from all appearances, he was simply parroting some other source, and never investigated beyond those sources. Finally, by the time he probably wrote this (C.E. 112 or so), the Gospel accounts had enjoyed wide circulation.

Again Tacitus only mentions a Christion Idol (the founder of the name), he never validates Jesus' ressurection (or name) in any way shape or form. Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. The Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded 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.

A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus. Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value.

Well that is all the time I have for right now. I will adress the rest of your last post before moving on to any other replies posted after mine.....

Have a good one!

[Parture]

And like I said, if you want to disprove something you must offer evidence to dismiss the theory.
It was given in the previous post. If you don't think it constitutes proof then show it. Be happy to respond to the rest of your points when you deal with this.

[Parture]

You have shown not one reason that this can't happen.
Sure it was shown. Since you would have had an eternity according to your infinite regress theory then you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so; so therefore, your theory must be false.

[Parture]

Then where is it? I have yet to see this "evidence". You offered no such evidence.
See my previous post. If you don't think it is evidence then show it. Don't just spout it.

[Parture]

I have yet to hear any scientist to make this claim. Do you have any scientific facts to support a claim such as this?
I have yet to find a single scientist claim that if something must be the cause for nature that it could be nature itself. That's a contradiction to say the least.

Why don't you think it is a scientific fact?

[Parture]

Again you use a logical fallacy, this time it is an appeal to probability.

It is impossible to win a debate with childish tricks like this.
Where did I use a logical fallacy before?

Sin does lead to death. The probability increases the more you smoke. Why be offended by reality? This only shows what Jesus said is true that sin leads to death and the second death which is Hell. Since Jesus is proven to be God you can trust what He said.

I would think it is childish to shut your mind down to the fact you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs yet still call Jesus and the disciples liars. Shame on you.

[Parture]

And no natural explanation can be given for Zeus, Osiris, Krishna, Allah, ect. ect.
Yet people documented them and you don't belive in them.
Since Zeus and these other characters you mention have no evidence for them, the naturalistic explanation would be people just made them up. Whereas Jesus was physically seen and the disciples spent three years with Him.

[Parture]

Just because scholars agree that it is not natural to come back to life, do not assume that they belive that it happened.

I can use this same argument to "prove" that all of the greek Gods exist.
Where did I assume scholars all believed it happened? You must have misread, for I said scholars concede this is what the disciples truly believed, but scholars don't have a naturalistic explanation to account for it.

You can't use the same argument for Greek gods because the ancients never walked among the people and they were not multiply attested by eyewitnesses like for Jesus.

[Parture]

Have you considered the possibility that "Luke" hade no knowlege of Paul's death?
Luke traveled with Paul. If you read Acts they were in regular contact. They both kept writing about each other. "Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. 4.11). So if either died, they would have known about it. What I recommend you do is read the Bible intimately because you are filled with prejudices that are easily exposed and torn down by reading God's word.

[Parture]

So you agree that Luke "took" from mark???

Given your position the argument can be made that since "Luke" is a revision of Mark (dated to no earlier than C.E. 70) and "Acts" is "part 2" it could not have been writen earlier then "Luke" which could not have been writen any earlier then "Mark". Which would put it after C.E. 70.

Since everyone agrees Mark was extremely early, I think it's fair to say Luke may have had access to it and incorporated it into his writings, after all Luke worked with Peter and Mark, and Luke was meticulous.

"Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught" (Luke 1.1-4).

Luke is not a revision, but Luke is Luke's collection of everything he could get his hands on. Based on the argument given to you before, Luke's account would be written likely no later than 45 AD. Mark was written even earlier you admit so that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross or even earlier.

[Parture]

Ok, since no person can come back from the dead after 2 and a half days. I conclude that "ressurection" is impossible.
The Bible doesn't make the claim Jesus resurrected naturally so that blows your theory. Since you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, you concede Jesus resurrected. Praise the Lord!

[Parture]

Remember the only manuscripts that most scholars belive are not forgeries are Romans I and II Corinthians and Galatians. And if "Acts" was writen after C.E. 70 (which I have argued is more then valid) Then it is likely an addition, not what Paul actually stated. So you lose.
According to the list of scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, by Gary Habermas who has the longest list in the world, one thing they almost all agree on is Paul really wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. In fact they believe Paul wrote all his letters with only some minor contention about Hebrews.

Acts as we have seen was written around 55 AD at the latest which you have not been able to overturn the argument given.

Basically you can believe all the writings were written right when the events happened or very shortly afterward unless you have a good reason to think otherwise. You have no good reasons to date.

[Parture]

Lets list them shall we?

People that were not there.
People that are exagerating.
People That want to make money.
People that are liers.
People that don't know how to translate correctly.

I can do this all day. Do you want me to list more?

The documentation is better than for any other event in antiquity so it wouldn't be a valid argument to say they weren't there. They are very well multiply attested.

How do you exaggerate from resurrection? This was the original teaching of the Church by the original disciples. And an exaggeration would be a lie. A person can't partially resurrect. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie so that's why most scholars concede they believed it.

How do you make money in what was clearly a religion that did not profit in the early Church. They were mocked, thrown to the lions, blamed for burning down Rome, etc. They were told by Jesus they would be martyred. It's hard to see dollar signs in that.

99% percent of Biblical sources are the same and no differences on major doctrine.

Since you first attempts don't work, what else do you got?

[Parture]

First of all, it is clear that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark's Gospel, because when their Gospels contain material found in Mark, the wording in Greek is almost identical as that in Mark's Gospel. This could not have happened if they were relying on oral sources, Aramaic sources, or even a common Greek source. Also, the Missing Block convincingly shows that Luke was relying on Mark's Gospel for everything he knew about the life of Jesus. So, the first clue, as to when Matthew and Luke were written, is to define when Mark was written. One of the internal clues to the date of Mark's Gospel is at Mark 13:2, where Jesus was said to prophesy the destruction of the Temple, an event that occurred in 70 CE. According to Mark, Jesus went on to predict the end of the world within the lifetime of his followers. If Jesus had really prophesied the destruction of the Temple, he would have been correct, but he would have been in error about the imminent end of times. Since it can not be accepted that Jesus made predictions that were capable of being in error, these prophecies must have originated with Mark, writing at a time when he would have known of the destruction or imminent destruction of the temple. Other references in this Gospel indicate that it could not have been written much after 70 CE. So, we can say that Mark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or very early in the 70s CE.
I am glad you can't show the wording is almost identical. However, you ought to expect some similarities because oral tradition uses same phraseology repeated over and over again. Luke said he used many sources not just Mark.

Mark never predicted the end of the world. Nobody in the whole Bible predicted the end of the world. How silly. Nor does he predict any such thing in the span of their lifetime. What the gospel writers do is mention this evil generation (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Matthew_24#generation) will continue till these things are finished, including the destruction of the Temple and the prince that is to come at the end of this age.

The fact that none of them mention the destruction of the Temple had already happened but was going to happen shows the accounts were written before 70 AD and likely sometime before because otherwise they would have said the Temple is being destroyed as they wrote these things down. Only does John suggest the Temple was destroyed in Rev. 11: "But the court which is without the temple leave out" (v.2). John wrote Revelation around 95 AD.

As was said before since Acts was written around 55 AD because no mention of Paul's death is given, that places Luke around 45 AD and since Luke took from Mark that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross.

[Parture]

To quote my self:

Again Tacitus only mentions a Christion Idol (the founder of the name), he never validates Jesus' ressurection (or name) in any way shape or form.
Why not respond to what I said already in response? ... The part that almost all scholars agree is authentic still speaks of Jesus. Tacitus mentions Jesus also.

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html


Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44.

The Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded 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.

A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus. Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value."Christus, the founder of the name [Christians]". This is called enemy attestation. Now Tacitus wrote this around 95 AD, 62 years after Jesus died on the cross, so all he can do is work with information, but surely he would not make the mistake about these very events and claims of the Church. He is an accurate reporter.

Christians consider secondary sources of little value. Only the primary sources count which are the writings of the New Testament and to a lesser extent those apostles such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome and some others who knew Peter and John personally and also commented on Paul.

Based on everything you said, you are wrong in everything you said.