When it dies and goes before Jesus for judgment

Not quite, there is NO record of Jesus from during his life, all records are decades or hundreds of years after, most likely citations from Christian sources.

First of all, your entire argument is begging the question.

Second, that applies to every biographical account for every past civilization of people who were not recorded by second or third-hand scribes/witnesses, such as Diogenes Laertius or even Tyrtamus. In fact, you could make an argument that neither of them existed either since there are no second-hand accounts from when they were alive chronicling their existence.

Additionally, there were no telegrams, social media, television, or syndicated news, so the only way people knew about things back then were decrees or word of mouth. Jesus was not royalty, so all of his exploits were spread via word of mouth, which takes a while to travel (especially when travel was limited). Hence why he wasn't written about during his life by anyone other than the apostles, and later discussed after news spread about his crucifixion.

Also keep in mind that many people back then were illiterate and so the average person wasn't blogging the way people do know (regardless of grammatical capabilities).

In fact, just barely 200 hundred years ago less than 12% of the population could read; so that percentage drops even lower nearly 2000 years ago, meaning unless you were a scribe or, again, royalty, you likely weren't jotting down everyday happenings:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/how-was-life_9789264214262-en

Additionally even with the telegram and news, it took nearly two decades after the first car was made before cars became more wildly available to the public, so imagine how long it would take for news to spread WITHOUT telegrams or news? Heck, people like Franz Kafka, Silvia Plath, van Gogh, and William Blake, all only became famous posthumously, and you won't find many works written about them while they were alive, again owning to the aforementioned factors above.

This is also why philosophers who weren't wildly sociable back during the height of Athens weren't written about much or chronicled in history; in fact, that applies to anyone who either didn't have manuscripts that survived various collapses or had scribes following them around like Epictetus. Yet on that note, I don't see people claiming that people like Cheirisophus or Archilochus are myths despite no testimonies or accounts surviving of them when they were alive?

What's more is that ALL the citations related to Jesus are from anti-Christian sources (again, scribes/politicians/royalty), which makes zero sense to your point. Read the citations. All of those people hated Jesus and the Christians. Their only mentions was about squashing their uprising after Jesus was seen as a martyr.

Tacitus most likely reported on what was told to him by Christians and what's the origin of it, it's in no way a direct historical record

Anti-Christian politicians who spearheaded and asked for advice on how to punish, execute and genocide Christians made record of Jesus and the Christians as pro-Christian propaganda?

Your argument isn't making sense.

Tacitus hated the Christians, and was responding gleefully to how they deserved the punishment they were receiving.

Pliny was also asking for advice from Trajan on how to persecute the Christians. It only verifies that most leaders during that time hated Jesus and the Christians, and from their writing championed his crucifixion. This was all part of a systematic persecution of Christians during that era:
https://theconversation.com/mythbusting-ancient-rome-throwing-christians-to-the-lions-67365

reply share

add reply

formatting help