Tacitus had access to records you don't now, but he did, in the time he lived, including people who were alive at the time Jesus was. You know diddly about historical research.
If your point is that the Platonic Form of Jesus, let's call it, is different from what's in the record, then you're not getting any disagreement from me.
And people have been questioning the historical record of Jesus since the Jews murdered him, and this mostly stems from Jewish influence.
Historical records are about as reliable as the bible itself. Interpolations galore. You've watched history get changed right in front of your eyes with regards to "simple" things like Trump's comments on Charlottesville and big things like Covid. You know how those will be written down if there isn't a massive churning in who edits Wikipedia.
In other words, written records are just one small point. It's questionable at best when you read stuff written by roman historians to support Christianity.
The other point to bring across is this: There won't be a rebuilding of a Jewish Temple in the land of Canaan without massive societal change. Such an undertaking would require a return to sacrificing of animals and Jews would feel too silly doing that. The story of Jesus and the destruction of the temple represent that turning point in human history. Abrahamic religions are the one world religion we've been told is coming.
Your response to a simple fact about historical research, about the availability of primary and secondary sources, is to say that is ALL historical research are the result of interpretations and historical records are unreliable?
Because of your inability to come to terms with some accepted facts, you're going all post modernist and saying it's all socially constructed. Interesting rejoinder to say the least. Entirely unproductive and ineffective as an argument, but sadly, hardly unique.
Do you have anything useful to write, besides the empirical equivalent of "if I didn't see it, then it didn't happen"?
Once you stop relying on such sources as literal and find patterns, you get closer to unraveling the mystery. I don't mean in some "woo" sense, but in the way that the fraternities understand it. Manly P. Hall even suggested the parables of Jesus had seven layers.
Unfortunately, most people are content with getting to the second and rarely the third layer.
Why is everyone so incredibly confused? OP seems to think Jesus cast people out of the house of Satan. Rather than taking issue with OP, you took issue with me.
Proving the literal existence of Jesus is much less helpful to your cause than you think. It gets you stuck in the weeds like this. It eventually drove more people away from Christianity than it drew towards. Have you noticed that pattern?
Tacitus had access to records you don't now, but he did, in the time he lived, including people who were alive at the time Jesus was. You know diddly about historical research.
If your point is that the Platonic Form of Jesus, let's call it, is different from what's in the record, then you're not getting any disagreement from me.
And people have been questioning the historical record of Jesus since the Jews murdered him, and this mostly stems from Jewish influence.
Historical records are about as reliable as the bible itself. Interpolations galore. You've watched history get changed right in front of your eyes with regards to "simple" things like Trump's comments on Charlottesville and big things like Covid. You know how those will be written down if there isn't a massive churning in who edits Wikipedia.
In other words, written records are just one small point. It's questionable at best when you read stuff written by roman historians to support Christianity.
The other point to bring across is this: There won't be a rebuilding of a Jewish Temple in the land of Canaan without massive societal change. Such an undertaking would require a return to sacrificing of animals and Jews would feel too silly doing that. The story of Jesus and the destruction of the temple represent that turning point in human history. Abrahamic religions are the one world religion we've been told is coming.
Your response to a simple fact about historical research, about the availability of primary and secondary sources, is to say that is ALL historical research are the result of interpretations and historical records are unreliable?
Because of your inability to come to terms with some accepted facts, you're going all post modernist and saying it's all socially constructed. Interesting rejoinder to say the least. Entirely unproductive and ineffective as an argument, but sadly, hardly unique.
Do you have anything useful to write, besides the empirical equivalent of "if I didn't see it, then it didn't happen"?
Once you stop relying on such sources as literal and find patterns, you get closer to unraveling the mystery. I don't mean in some "woo" sense, but in the way that the fraternities understand it. Manly P. Hall even suggested the parables of Jesus had seven layers.
Unfortunately, most people are content with getting to the second and rarely the third layer.
Why is everyone so incredibly confused? OP seems to think Jesus cast people out of the house of Satan. Rather than taking issue with OP, you took issue with me.
Proving the literal existence of Jesus is much less helpful to your cause than you think. It gets you stuck in the weeds like this. It eventually drove more people away from Christianity than it drew towards. Have you noticed that pattern?
Doubling down then, but this time adding a dash of gnosticism. Oh, do go on....