So the only actual claim made is that Paul was supposedly an eyewitness to the eyewitnesses. The other claims are that there are supposedly 15 independent sources for it and an appeal to authority about an accredited specialist.
The documentary I posted covers the topic of Paul heavily, I doubt you actually watched it if this is part of your rebuttal. Try watching it again.
Tacitus’s last major work, titled Annals, written c. 116–117 C.E., includes a biography of Nero. In 64 C.E., during a fire in Rome, Nero was suspected of secretly ordering the burning of a part of town where he wanted to carry out a building project, so he tried to shift the blame to Christians. This was the occasion for Tacitus to mention Christians, whom he despised.
Whom he despised? Thats not what Tacitus wrote, thats a compeltet mischaracterization. Thats some mighty fine language manipulation there. Nero blamed the Christians because, as Tacitus said, everyone already hated them anyways. Sounds like jews to me! Tacitus himself call christians a "class hated for their abominations" and "the evil." Tacitus also says they pleaded guilty to "hatred of mankind". Also notice how the quote doesn't say "Jesus Christ" only "Christus", a title meaning "the anointed one" which could have easily been given to Ra or Mithras or literally anyone else.
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 origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre 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.
Josephus
The documentary I posted also covers the topic of the Josephus too. I doubt you actually watched it if this is part of your rebuttal as well. You're bringing up points that they literally countered already, and was basically the first part of the documentary, after the intro of course.
The claims made are not that the setting of the story didnt exsist (the kings and pharos this source cites). The claim is that the line of adam didnt exist. If your argument is a misrepresentation of whats being said then I doubt you actually watched the documentary. At best you might have skipped around some.
I invite anyone actually reading this to watch the documentary themselves to get both sides of the argument. u/Vlad_The_Impaler has done a good job of posting sources representing his side, check out the documentary to get a good overview of the other and make up your own mind on the matter.
So the only actual claim made is that Paul was supposedly an eyewitness to the eyewitnesses. The other claims are that there are supposedly 15 independent sources for it and an appeal to authority about an accredited specialist.
The documentary I posted covers the topic of Paul heavily, I doubt you actually watched it if this is part of your rebuttal. Try watching it again.
Whom he despised? Thats not what Tacitus wrote, thats a compeltet mischaracterization. Thats some mighty fine language manipulation there. Nero blamed the Christians because, as Tacitus said, everyone already hated them anyways. Sounds like jews to me! Tacitus himself call christians a "class hated for their abominations" and "the evil." Tacitus also says they pleaded guilty to "hatred of mankind". Also notice how the quote doesn't say "Jesus Christ" only "Christus", a title meaning "the anointed one" which could have easily been given to Ra or Mithras or literally anyone else.
The documentary I posted also covers the topic of the Josephus too. I doubt you actually watched it if this is part of your rebuttal as well. You're bringing up points that they literally countered already, and was basically the first part of the documentary, after the intro of course.
https://youtu.be/ZftML6pAv7E?t=476
The claims made are not that the setting of the story didnt exsist (the kings and pharos this source cites). The claim is that the line of adam didnt exist. If your argument is a misrepresentation of whats being said then I doubt you actually watched the documentary. At best you might have skipped around some.
I invite anyone actually reading this to watch the documentary themselves to get both sides of the argument. u/Vlad_The_Impaler has done a good job of posting sources representing his side, check out the documentary to get a good overview of the other and make up your own mind on the matter.