>the Roman elite invented Christianity with the help of Josephus who deliberately forged the gospels in parallel with his account Jewish War around 70 AD, for the purpose of quelling militaristic Jews, urging them to be pacifist, view tax-collectors and centurions as good guys, and give their money to Caesarwait, that can’t be, surely the gospels were written earlier, you know, around the time Jesus died?>the earliest gospel Mark is estimated to be written around 70-75 AD…ok but what about Paul’s letters? He wrote them around 50 AD and mentioned Christ and his resurrection, so how could that happen?>there is no proof that Paul existed. The first mention of his writings in 95 AD by Pope Clement Ibut what about the Christians that Tacitus mentioned? Isn’t this proof they existed?>Tacitus wrote in 116 AD about a fire in 64 AD (when he was 8 years old) and offhandedly mentioned Christians as maybe being involved, but we don’t even know for sure because none of the ordinal manuscripts have existed since 1100 AD at the latestbut what about Pliny the Younger?!>written in 113 AD, nephew of Pliny the Elder who was involved with the Roman elite around the time Josephus could have forged the gospelswhat the heck christbros… I guess we really just need to take it all on faith
>>18688783>there is no proof that Paul existedExcept for the early Christian community that independently interacted with him and wrote about him? Faggot don't try to erase the most important person in history (he started Christianity).
>>18688786what writings?
>>18688786Imagine believing that Christianity ever started. The evidence just isn't good enough.
>>18688790https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/Paul is remembered as a real person in those, faggot.>>18688805The fuck you mean? Christianity is eternal?
>>18688783If you are correct then why do historians claim otherwise? Are they dumb or something? Just curious.
>>18688838They are paid off by the Roman elite, obviously.
>>18688783>>Tacitus wrote in 116 AD about a fire in 64 AD (when he was 8 years old) and offhandedly mentioned Christians as maybe being involved, but we don’t even know for sure because none of the ordinal manuscripts have existed since 1100 AD at the latestA historian is going to see that Tacitus was tampered with, and wouldn't use them as a source. There's no other sources that actually even approach what would support Jesus existing in history.They changed the word Chrestians to Christians. In the oldest surviving copy that we have for that chapter, it's literally showing the edit in progress.The 'E' was being edited, as shown conclusively with UV light, and the word Christians is in the margins.We can see that the Christian scribes were editing documents.But obviously in Latin letters.>picrelThe top picture shows the Chrestians 'E' edit, with Christians in the margin.The bottom picture shows the UV light visual, shows that it was originally an 'E'.(Cont)
>>18688889There's also other telltales signs that the entire thing was edited.>Using the spelling Chrestians and then saying they're named after "Christus" is nonsensical.>Early Christians were terrorists that pleaded guilty, leading to an immense multitude of them being convicted.>It only mentions Christus, not Jesus. If his information was based on the Roman archives, either:>>Tacitus is mistakenly only referring to a title.>>The title of the person was recorded instead of their name.>>There was someone named Christus.>No other historian or contemporary figure mentions the Christians being persecuted by Nero for the fire in Rome. Suetonius writes about the fire, but doesn't associate it with the Christians.>Tacitus had access to the Roman archives but makes several unusual mistakes:>>He doesn't provide sources.>>A Reference to a title without a name. This is about as useful as a gravestone marked "Oiled.">>Instead of a date, he only provides the range of during Tiberius' reign. A window of 22 years, 5 months, 27 days.>>Doesn't mention Crucifixion. Only that he suffered the extreme penalty.>>Calls Pilate a procurator instead of prefect. While the position was changed in the 40s, he gets the position correct and notes a differnce in earlier in the same book. He evidently knows the difference; he mentions prefects 77 times within three books.Agricola 22Annals 4.36, 4.73, 6.10, 6.27, 12.35, 12.38, 12.45, 12.46, 14.37, 14.41, 14.42, 14.43, 14.63, 15.25(Differentiates Procurators and Prefects a few chapters before making the mistake)The Histories 1.5, 1.13, 1.14, 1.19, 1.24, 1.26, 1.28, 1.46, 1.58, 1.81, 1.82, 1.87, 2.15, 2.26, 2.29, 2.33, 2.39, 2.46, 2.49, 2.55, 2.59, 2.63, 2.70, 2.82, 2.88, 2.89, 2.92, 3.7, 3.12, 3.14, 3.19, 3.35, 3.36, 3.58, 3.64, 3.75, 3.77, 4.2, 4.11, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, 4.31, 4.32, 4.39, 4.49, 4.50, 4.59, 4.78, 5.20Tacitus just wouldn't make such amateur mistakes, as seen in this passage. It's clearly an edit.
>>18688810these are after 100 AD. Give a specific example and sources
>>18688838>why do historians claim otherwiseWhich historians?
ughh the conspiracy theory retards are teh worst.
>>18689047conspiracies happen all the time in the modern age when they should be the hardest to do. You really think it wasn’t happening thousands of years ago? Everyone was retarded, there was no freedom of the press, people couldn’t read, kings and emperors could do whatever they wanted.
>>18689044Like every single one aside from like 5 who want to sell books to retards like you who hate the Christ.
