Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why did the High Priest tear his garment?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

It's kind of long but if you want i'll be more than happy to post it here

Sure it will be "long". Because there is nothing about a messiah from Nazareth in the HB as claimed by Matthew's author. So one must piece passages together to give that impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, tek91 said:

Where is your evidence they could not hold a powerless trial?

In the post you quoted and which still needs adressing.

And Of course the Jews could hold trials but not related to capital punishements according to their law as these types of crimes (like the blasphemy charge against Jesus) were irrelevant to the Romans.

And the passage from Matt27 (which is actually Jn18) further proves the point. When the Pharisees take him to the Romans, they do not bring up this irrelevant blasphemy charge against him. They in fact bring no accusation at all. They leave it to Pilate to start guessing what crime Jesus is guilty of. What then was the necessity of that "pre-trial"? Why did they not just hand him to Pilate? They would have saved precious time on passover eve, an important time of religious dedication and preparation.

Adding to this the fact that this Jewish trial involved breaking so many halakha rulings (something that never occured in Jewish history) that it must have been worth it. Yet it was irrelevant on all counts and a waste of everyone's time?

It is fiction, like the rest of the gospels, based on a few historical truths.

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, tek91 said:

There was no suicide. Yeshua didn't hate his life and want to die.

Comitting suicide doesn't mean one hates life. You can kill yourself for someone you love, which was  Jesus and his divine partners' plan "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son".

More damaging to the Trinitarian idea of co-equality between these divine partners of the godhead, is that if the thought of God's willful suicide seems unsettling then one would have to settle for forced suicide since Jesus begs his father 3 times to relieve him from this impending crucifixion whose eventual occurrence he knew about long ago, but backed off from at the last moment, until he submits to the Father's will Lk22"not my will but yours be done"

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Rejecting or accepting a scholar has nothing to do with his religion but whether he handles historical sources in an unbiased, objective manner.

Where is your evidence that the historians I showed you did not handle the evidence in an unbiased and objective manner? All you said was they are christian therefore they must be biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

hat is not in the text. Peter is addressing a group of people, not the whole nation, telling them they know of what has occured of miracles among them. Nobody would believe him had they not seen with their eyes the miracles performed.

Yes hes adressing a group of jews and says fellow Israelites you Know Jesus did miracles and signs among you.

This means fellow Jews you know he did miracles and signs among the Israelite people.

Peter did not say they all witnessed the miracles, but KNEW of it.

As ye yourself know is the key word

Maybe some did and some did not but he was adressing the nation as a whole that's why he said the word fellow Israelites. 

An Earthquake would be something they all would have experienced.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

hat example is irrelevant as Herod was not among the crowd Peter was addressing.

He was jewish right? According to you Peter was saying all jews witnessed with their own eyes the miracles and signs Jesus performed.

Peter was adressing the Israelites how miracles was done among them and they all knew of it.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

embellishment was added to the text after Peter's speech

So are you saying Matthew made it up? Yet no one corrected him? This is a disciple of Jesus were talking about. If this event where to be false it would have been rebuked.

I also showed you that Luke mentions the veil being torn in half which was as a result of the Earthquake.

If you are so much for corraborating evidence why do you not believe in the death and Ressurection of Jesus which is collaberated all over the NT?

Why also do you believe the Moon was split by Mohammad when there's no collaberating scriptures of it and no historical facts of this event.

I did not get a respond from you in any of these.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Not a single secular contemporary historian mentions Jesus or the crucifixion

I wont even count Josephus.

Tacticus claimed Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

The Babylonian Talmud claims Yeshu was hanged and that it was an execution because he practised sorcery and enticed Israel to Apostacy.

He definitely wasnt a christian.

Lucian mentions Christians worship a man who introduced their novel rights and was crucified on that account. He calls him their crucified sage.

Not a christian as well.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Sure it will be "long". Because there is nothing about a messiah from Nazareth in the HB as claimed by Matthew's author. So one must piece passages together to give that impression.

If it mentions the Prophets it has to show evidence of the Nazarene characteristics through the prophets not just one prophet.

Which like I said ill be more than happy to show you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

In the post you quoted and which still needs adressing.

And Of course the Jews could hold trials but not related to capital punishements according to their law as these types of crimes (like the blasphemy charge against Jesus) were irrelevant to the Romans.

And the passage from Matt27 (which is actually Jn18) further proves the point. When the Pharisees take him to the Romans, they do not bring up this irrelevant blasphemy charge against him. They in fact bring no accusation at all. They leave it to Pilate to start guessing what crime Jesus is guilty of. What then was the necessity of that "pre-trial"? Why did they not just hand him to Pilate? They would have saved precious time on passover eve, an important time of religious dedication and preparation.

Adding to this the fact that this Jewish trial involved breaking so many halakha rulings (something that never occured in Jewish history) that it must have been worth it. Yet it was irrelevant on all counts and a waste of everyone's time?

It is fiction, like the rest of the gospels, based on a few historical truths.

They could hold a trial as long as they don't execute the order.

The Jews did not execute anyone. You have yet to show they could not hold an execution trial that doesnt involve executing a person.

You are not telling the truth they did bring an accusation they claimed Yeshua commited an offense against the law.

According to Jewish teaching Blasphemy is going against their law. They also claimed he was misleading the people and stiring up problems among them.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, tek91 said:

I wont even count Josephus.

Tacticus....

The Babylonian Talmud...

Lucian....

None of those mention Jesus or his alleged crucifixion.

This link demonstrates it for those interested https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/islam-critiqued-feels-lucky-non.html?m=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nad_M said:

None of those mention Jesus or his alleged crucifixion.

This link demonstrates it for those interested https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/islam-critiqued-feels-lucky-non.html?m=1

That link is so weak. It mentions Tacticus was born 20 years after therefore its fake. Yet he lived during that era and must have known the history of the events of that time.

He as well was not a christian so if the crucifixion of Yeshua was a forgery he could have easily mentioned that but it was known in that time. 

Scholars consider Tacitus reference to be of historical value as an independence Roman sources about early Christianity was in unison with other historical records. He was a Roman senator who had no sympathy towards Christians.

So for him to even mention that Christ suffered the extreme penalty means it was a well known fact that Yeshua was killed by the Romans.

About Lucian what the guy in your link says is laughable. He says that Lucian never mentioned Jesus lol

What other man is worshiped by Christians and introduced their novel rights and was crucified? How many people can that fit ?

This site does not even address the Babylonian Talmud lol.

Yet we should believe some guy in a cave 500 years after that says he wasnt crucified with no historical evidence to back him up lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, tek91 said:

They could hold a trial as long as they don't execute the order.

The Jews did not execute anyone. You have yet to show they could not hold an execution trial that doesnt involve executing a person.

You are not telling the truth they did bring an accusation they claimed Yeshua commited an offense against the law.

According to Jewish teaching Blasphemy is going against their law. They also claimed he was misleading the people and stiring up problems among them.

I forgot to mention as well that another accusation the Jews brought was he was the Christ thus he makes himself a King.

That's why during questioning Pontius Pilate asked Yeshua "Are you a King?." In which Yeshua replied that his Kingdom was not of this World (Spiritual Kingdom) 

That is why the Romans put a crown of thorns on his head and robe and started to bow in mockery saying hail king.

That is also why Pontius Pilate put on top on the cross the accussation "This is Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews."

Basically the Jews accused Yeshua of breaking their laws, stiring the people (rebellion) and being the Christ (Messiah King of the Jews)

So I have no clue where you got the idea that there was no accussations by the Jews and the Romans had to make it up lol

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, tek91 said:

Scholars consider Tacitus reference to be of historical value

It is rejected by scholars for the reasons mentioned in the link

2 hours ago, tek91 said:

He says that Lucian never mentioned Jesus

Sure. No Jesus there

2 hours ago, tek91 said:

This site does not even address the Babylonian Talmud

Jesus in the Talmud is a most foolish attempt since the few Yeshu mentionned therein, besides being a common Hebrew name do not fit the Christian Jesus chronologically nor in their life stories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, tek91 said:

Basically the Jews accused Yeshua of breaking their laws, stiring the people (rebellion) and being the Christ (Messiah King of the Jews)

Which law did they accuse him of breaking, and why would it even matter to the Romans? The first thing Pilate tells them, when he is brought before him is to "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law". This is because, supposing Jesus did break some religious law, which he never did, this charge would carry no weight in Roman courts.

Your first excuse is thus irrelevant. Like your other posts that ignore the evidence presented.

As to rebellion against the state and claiming kingship, how does that transgress Jewish law, thereby requiring the setting up of that historically exceptional Sanhedrin that waisted everyone's time on passover eve? The messianic king that would give Jews the upper hand over all nations is exactly what Jews all throughout history down to our times have been waiting for. Look at how they supported Bar Kochba, a messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus.

He, by the way, performed no miracles yet contrary to Jesus is attested to in all of contemporary secular history.

Edited by Nad_M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2021 at 3:04 PM, Nad_M said:

It is rejected by scholars for the reasons mentioned in the link

I answered the link and do not feel like repeating myself. 

Another thing is there are no historians from 1500 or before that as we would define reliable would be. However Tacticus was one of the most reliable. There is little evidence that he was a bad historian of his times standards.

This is shown by the fact that he referenced the acta senatus and the acta diurna populi Romani directly which are some of the most official and reliable sources from the time. 

Read what Van Voorst states, he states that "of all the Roman writers, Tacticus gives us the most precise information about Christ" Many considers his passages important in establishing that Jesus existed and was crucified. He says, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2021 at 3:04 PM, Nad_M said:

Sure. No Jesus there

Tell me what other man is worshiped by Christians, introduced their novel rights and was Crucified.

That fits no other man in history and if you can't admit it's Jesus then I can see you are just trolling or in denial doing whatever you can to deny truth. Even a blind man can see that only fits Jesus.

I don't want to hear, "well it doesn't say the word Jesus so it's not him " because that would be an unintelligable and weak answer.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2021 at 3:04 PM, Nad_M said:

It is rejected by scholars for the reasons mentioned in the link

Sure. No Jesus there

Jesus in the Talmud is a most foolish attempt since the few Yeshu mentionned therein, besides being a common Hebrew name do not fit the Christian Jesus chronologically nor in their life stories

That one you might have a small point as there were other people called Yeshu. 

I believe it is talking about Yeshua, because it says the event happened on the eve of passover, it also says that he enticed Israel to apostacy which is what the enemies of Jesus was accusing him off. Also it says that he was practicing sorcery.

Meaning they saw his miracles as an act of sorcery.

I never heard of any other Yeshu of that time that fit that description. How many Yeshus did miracles, enticed Israel to apostacy according to his enemies, and was also crucified on the eve of passover.

It would be the largest coincidence in the history of mankind.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2021 at 3:21 PM, Nad_M said:

Which law did they accuse him of breaking, and why would it even matter to the Romans? The first thing Pilate tells them, when he is brought before him is to "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law". This is because, supposing Jesus did break some religious law, which he never did, this charge would carry no weight in Roman courts.

The specific law is not mentioned to Pontius Pilate the jews told Pilate that Yeshua was a malefactor. I believe the law they were referring to was blasphemy as that is what they convicted him in their trial.

It did not matter to the Romans you are correct in what you say. That is not what convinced Pontius Pilate to put Yeshua to death. 

After they took Yeshua to Herod they came back to Pontius Pilate and the Jewish people convinced Pilate to crucify him telling Pilate that if the Romans let go of Yeshua that he would not be a friend of Caesar because Yeshua is a king, causes a rebellion and according to the Jews refused to pay taxes to Caesar.

Soon after Pontius Pilate gave the Jews a decision Yeshua or Barabbas and the Jews cried out Barrabas. 

Pontius Pilate did not want to kill Jesus but he also did not want any trouble with Tiberius Ceasar Augustus. He washed his hands and basically told the Jews his blood is in your hands.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2021 at 3:21 PM, Nad_M said:

rebellion against the state and claiming kingship, how does that transgress Jewish law, thereby requiring the setting up of that historically exceptional Sanhedrin that waisted everyone's time on passover eve? The messianic king that would give Jews the upper hand over all nations is exactly what Jews all throughout history down to our times have been waiting for. Look at how they supported Bar Kochba, a messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus.

He, by the way, performed no miracles yet contrary to Jesus is attested to in all of contemporary secular history.

The Jews expected the Messiah to fulfill all messianic prophecies in one turn. They believed he had to fulfill the Prophecies of both Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David.

The difference is Christians and Messianic Jews believe the messiah first came as a suffering messiah (messiah ben Joseph) and will come again as a triumphant King(messiah ben David) in his second coming.

Meaning he fulfilled the first half and will fulfill the rest of the prophecies in the future.

This is verified as there is no doubt according to Daniels prophecy of the 70 weeks that Messiah absolutely had to come before the destruction of the second temple.

Interestingly God says in haggai that the glory of the latter temple shall be greater than the former.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Read what Van Voorst states, he states that "of all the Roman writers, Tacticus gives us the most precise information about Christ"

Richard Carrier explains why that position is untenable in light of the evidence provided in this link and which none of your sources, and none of your posts address https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/islam-critiqued-feels-lucky-non.html?m=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Tell me what other man is worshiped by Christians, introduced their novel rights and was Crucified.

Lucian's references are from the 2nd century. 150+ years after Jesus. Even if one were to assume that the reference is to Jesus it does nothing to establish the historicity of the crucifixion as neither Lucian (nor Tacitus as is explained above) quote their sources.

Of course that by their time the Jesus legend had already spread among early Christians. Lucian is simply repeating their beliefs mockingly.

The Quran exposes who started these rumors and why https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/acts17apologetics-accuse-islam-allah.html?m=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

That one you might have a small point as there were other people called Yeshu. 

And these Yeshus have far more dissimilarities than common points with the Jesus of the NT. Keep in mind that miracle working around Jesus' time was not unique to Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

After they took Yeshua to Herod they came back to Pontius Pilate and the Jewish people convinced Pilate to crucify him telling Pilate that if the Romans let go of Yeshua that he would not be a friend of Caesar because Yeshua is a king, causes a rebellion and according to the Jews refused to pay taxes to Caesar.

Meaning this charge of rebellion was irrelevant to Jewish law. Not only was it irrelevant but it was anxiously awaited when their savior messiah would appear and do just that.

What then was the point of that hasty, useless and illegitimate trial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, tek91 said:

Jews expected the Messiah to fulfill all messianic prophecies in one turn.

Jews give the title of messiah to anyone who begins fulfilling what the HB says the messiah will do. That is why some believed Bar Kochba or more recently Mendel Schneerson were messiahs.

Jesus neither fulfilled a single messianic accomplishment, nor had the correct genealogy.

As to ben Yosef and ben David, they are 2 different persons that shall appear together towards the end days, each with specific tasks, and one superior to the other. Keeping in mind that this prediction of 2messiahs is a conditional one. If the Jews repent prior to ben Yosef's appearance then only ben David will show upand assume his role as king.

See this for more details http://judaismsanswer.com/yosef.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Richard Carrier explains why that position is untenable in light of the evidence provided in this link and which none of your sources, and none of your posts address https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/islam-critiqued-feels-lucky-non.html?m=1

Already answered your just posting the same website over again by a muslim. Why don't you try a non muslim source. I also showed you evidence of Tacticus reliability that was not answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Lucian's references are from the 2nd century. 150+ years after Jesus. Even if one were to assume that the reference is to Jesus it does nothing to establish the historicity of the crucifixion as neither Lucian (nor Tacitus as is explained above) quote their sources.

Of course that by their time the Jesus legend had already spread among early Christians. Lucian is simply repeating their beliefs mockingly.

The Quran exposes who started these rumors and why https://truthanvil.blogspot.com/2020/04/acts17apologetics-accuse-islam-allah.html?m=1

It doesn' t matter If it was 150 years after. Lucian shows the knowledge of the time as well as Tacticus which was closer to Yeshuas time and back up the gospel documents. The basic knowledge was that Yeshua did miracles was killed by the Romans and his disciples worshiped him.

These are respected and well known historians.

You don't want me to trust someone 150 years after yet you expect me to believe what an illiterate man who says Yeshua never died more than 500+ years after the facts without any collaboration or non quranic sources. 

Where is the evidence that Yeshua did some houdini act, disobeyed God by not following his will and had someone else take his place on the cross.

Also, where is the collaborating evidence in history about this man splitting the moon in half?

Please don't hide from these questions if you are so for collaberating evidence than this should be easy for you.

Please don't pretend like I never mentioned these questions which you have done in the past.

I want answers to these questions as well as many people here reading.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

And these Yeshus have far more dissimilarities than common points with the Jesus of the NT. Keep in mind that miracle working around Jesus' time was not unique to Jesus.

As you yourself know and scriptures have shown Yeshua was very famous. Even from the verse you pointed out that Yeshuas signs and wonders were well known among the fellow Israelites.

So you are saying another Yeshu was killed on the eve of passover who also created miracles and his enemies believed he enticed Israel to Apostacy :D

wow what a coincidence beyond coincidence.

I don't see how you can expect me to take you seriously.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Meaning this charge of rebellion was irrelevant to Jewish law. Not only was it irrelevant but it was anxiously awaited when their savior messiah would appear and do just that.

What then was the point of that hasty, useless and illegitimate trial?

It was not irrelevant to Romans they were in constant fear of an uproar and a rebellion. That's why the Jews used it to try to convince Pilate to crucify the Lord. The reason for the jewish trial was to find a reason to put Yeshua to death and they did but since they could not execute the order they manipulated the governor Pontius Pilate and the Romans to do their dirty work for them.

The scriptures are very obvious in this fact.

Btw you are correct that the jews were waiting for the messiah to be a conquering messiah that is one of the reason most did not accept him. The bible does show he will return as a conquering king. The Lion of the trube of Judah.

He first had to suffer and atone sin as Isaiah and the book of Daniel clearly show.

He fulfiilled the prophecies of the suffering servant who had to come before the destruction of the second temple just as was written.

Glory to God.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nad_M said:

Jews give the title of messiah to anyone who begins fulfilling what the HB says the messiah will do. That is why some believed Bar Kochba or more recently Mendel Schneerson were messiahs.

Jesus neither fulfilled a single messianic accomplishment, nor had the correct genealogy.

As to ben Yosef and ben David, they are 2 different persons that shall appear together towards the end days, each with specific tasks, and one superior to the other. Keeping in mind that this prediction of 2messiahs is a conditional one. If the Jews repent prior to ben Yosef's appearance then only ben David will show upand assume his role as king.

Really Isaiah 53 says hi and so does the prophecies of Daniel and others.

Messiah ben Joseph already appeared before the destruction of the second temple and alot missed his coming including muslims.

Let me guess who you think it is that dude madhi and your isa right ? Not a chance.

You know that after the death of Mendel Schneerson's his followers expected him to rise from the grave....they were outside. Beth Israel Hospital expecting their Rebbe would miracously return to them.

Don't you find that interesting.

Of course he never did but we both know who did

Mendel Schneersons followers believed that their rebbe would rise from the dead because they knew it was messianic prophecies from the Torah/Tanach.

Edited by tek91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, tek91 said:

Also, where is the collaborating evidence in history about this man splitting the moon in half?

Please don't hide from these questions if you are so for collaberating evidence than this should be easy for you.

Please don't pretend like I never mentioned these questions which you have done in the past.

I want answers to these questions as well as many people here reading.

Hi your assumption has based on some Sunni videos & propaganda about vague videos from the moon nevertheless the incident of splitting moon is a controversial issue which Shia scholars have reffered it as probably a sign of a great event in future although they have accepted happeng of this miracle by prophet Muhammad (pbu) in his time  but we don't rely on vague & uncofirmed videos of splitting moon by Sunni channels which their procedure is doing Dawah based on their wrong & distorted interpretation from verses of Quran which they just rely on positivism & controversial physical phenomenons  instead of real meaning behind any vers of Quran which for Shia scholars splitting moon is mostly has spritual  & deep meaning than it's literal meaning likewise describing heart of disbleivers & deniers to covered heart or something harder than physical stone which verses of Quran can destroy physical stones but on the other hand it has no effect on heart of disblievers & denires although their physical heart is same as heart of belivers but on the other hand their spritual heart is harder than stone so therefor splitting moon would be reffered mostly as a phenomenon which will challenge disblievers dring reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) & second coming of prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام) for supporting him & returning Christians & Jews to their original teachings after his second coming which real meaning behind  splitting moon will be exposed at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, tek91 said:

lso, where is the collaborating evidence in history about this man splitting the moon in half?

For addendum there is not enough evidence about landing of Americans on moon as greatest achivement of Chritian scientist of America against communists as denires of God & rival of christian America which you can find many videos about confirming moon landing & reaching to Mars by Christian astronomers of America but also on the other hand there is also conspiracy theoris for denying these achievment by Christian astronomers of America which both sides have never ending struggle nevertheless both sides can't provide enough evidence for ending this struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 10/19/2021 at 11:41 PM, tek91 said:

Why also do you believe the Moon was split by Mohammad when there's no collaberating scriptures of it and no historical facts of this event.

Another addendum is an undenialble fact which Christanity is based on considering the Earth as center of universe or at least circling the Sun & solar system around the earth which denying it have been equal to denying God & crucification of Jesus until it challenged & refuted by Galileo which now all Christians have accepted this scientific fact which is in contrst to Christian ideology which now majority of flatearthers are devoted Christians too which also which we have seen majority of flatearthers between Wahabists/Salafists which their ideology is creation of Zionists & Evangelists. 

9 hours ago, tek91 said:

Where is the evidence that Yeshua did some houdini act, disobeyed God by not following his will and had someone else take his place on the cross.

It's not just Houdini act which also controlling bitrate of heart & speed of circulating of blood has long history between buddhist monk & Indian Yogis which has learnt by circus magicians  also your belive to rising from dead also can reffers  to vampires & Zombies  which the  Dracula story backs to paganism in europe which has been main main antagonist & manistifation of antichrist for opposing Christanity in Europe which nowadays the Dracula  has became  main protector of Christanity against Islam especially  Ottomans due to hardwork of Zionists &Evangelists  for creating new stories especially  by help of Hollywood  which later Zombies as another example  of rising from dead  by african roots & rest of paganistic beliefs likewise celtic beliefs &  mummies  & magic for bringing back dead to life by  hardwork of Zionists especially  by help of Hollywood  have became  as unseperable Christian culture which also popular magicians likewise David copperfieled has mimicked flying & Chris Angle has mimicked walking on water which has been chalenging walking on water by Jesus by him as mixture of christ & antichrist persona  in his mindfreak show .

10 hours ago, tek91 said:

Already answered your just posting the same website over again by a muslim. Why don't you try a non muslim source. I also showed you evidence of Tacticus reliability that was not answered.

it's from a non muslim source

Quote

'how Accurate An Historian Was Tacitus?'

An assessment of the accuracy of Tacitus as a historical writer

Date : 20/11/2013

Author Information

 

Uploaded by : Edward
Uploaded on : 20/11/2013
Subject History

The factual accuracy of Tacitus work is indeed questionable. It is based largely on a secondary source of unknown reliability and obvious mistakes are apparent exemplified in his confusion between the daughters of Mark Anthony and Octavia, both named Antonia. This question focuses on the 'accuracy' of the historian but to debate through a thorough questioning of content is not appropriate. Tacitus 'must not be damned because they (his works) are not accompanied by footnotes stating the chapter and verse of their authority.' The question we should be asking is to the extent to which Tacitus wrote appropriate history in terms of his own personal aims and the historiographical context of the times in which he himself lived. 
 
Tacitus does not apply a consistent historical method and his scepticism forces an ambiguity to pervade the narrative undermining the possibility of a coherent explanation. Furthermore, a fixed human condition is wholly at odds with his overriding teleological understanding of history as a moral exemplar, if the individual is not in control of his personality and subsequent actions then this exercise seems fruitless. Instead, we should celebrate Tacitus' inconsistency as a realistic reflection of the dynamism of human existence.
 
Tacitus' failure to be impartial is often considered a breach of accurate history. He himself, certainly claims to be objective evident in his comparative analysis of other historians whose works he criticizes as 'falsified through fear, written under the irritation of recent hatred.' In contrast Tacitus aims to 'relate a few facts.without either bitterness or partiality.' The typical example of Tacitus' partiality reflected in his historical narrative is in his broadly negative portrayal of Tiberius, 

https://www.tutorhunt.com/resource/8676/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...