[Winter wind]

Quote by: Zhavric Woah, woah, woah... Easy there, killer. You, who believes in Christ based on a handful of accounts, don't have any room to discard accounts. We know Pandira existed from the writings of contemporary individuals. Are you really going to toss out the baby with the bathwater? Really?

Which contemporary individuals? I'm interested in looking them up.

Thank you for that textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy.

I know. I was nervous about using it. But I'm not a biblical expert nor am I very knowledgeable about this time period.

But if you want me to present an text like you did, sure...

Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

One example of a group refuting the Jesus myth hypothesis. I can give more if necessary.

It's self-evident. His writings demonstrate almost no knowledge of the critical (alleged) life events of Jesus. That there wasn't a "Paul" in the way we think there was a Paul? Again, the only way to date those letters is by using what apologists call internal evidence. This requires assuming the letters couldn't have been written much later. It would be like me writing a fragment of a journal entry today that reads...

Zhavric, all I'm asking is that you pick a Bible passage and show us why it proves Paul had no idea what he was talking about. It may be self evident, but let's do this one by one. It's just easier to have a debate over a specific argument rather then a general attack. I hope I'm not asking too much.

As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero

I must have missed something. Where does it say the word 'Christian' was not used?

there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians.

I have a link that explains this argument as false better then I can.

Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

scroll until you reach the part titled "Tacitus refers to a "great multitude" of Christians at Rome. There would not be this many Christians in Rome at this early time."
It's all the way at the bottom.
"This is rather an empty objection that merely assumes what it sets out to prove! Even so, what does Tacitus mean here by a "great multitude"? 50? 100? 500? Is it a relative term for, "a great multitude, in respect to the crime committed"? (I.e., if we arrested 50 people for holding up a corner gas station, does that seem like a "great multitude" to arrest for such a relatively minor crime?) There is simply no force behind this objection, for it lacks specificity"

That is only the very beginning. Please read the whole thing before attacking it.

Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews.

I don't fully understand your argument.

So your saying that when Tacticus says "Christians", he really means "Jews?"

Prove it.
But he outlines the Christians specifically and not the Jews. To make himself even more clear, he states who their founder is.

In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.

You state that he doesn't mean Christians, but Jews. Why do you say he's a fraud? What evidence do you have that he isn't telling the truth?