anonymous person
Well-Known Member
I would be glad to.
Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value.
Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center 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.
What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
For example:
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal
Now what is a non-sequitur you ask?
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In anon sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.
For example:
1. The school in which my child goes to school is big. The classroom must be big.
2. She drives a BMW. She must be rich.
3. Greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming. Humans contribute to greenhouse gas production. Humans are solely to blame for global warming.
5. She's wearing red shoes. Her favorite color must be red.
1. Is a non-sequitur because the school may be comprised of many small classrooms.
2. Is a non-sequitur because the woman may be poor and may be driving a friends car, or a stolen car etc.
3. Is a non-sequitur because there may be other contributing factors to global warming.
4. Is a non-sequitur because the red shoes may be the only pair she has.
Now to your statement:
Morals are things that humans learn through their life. God has no part in this.
This is a non-sequitur because God may be the one who enables us to learn these things as we go through life.
Upvote
0