“ After pseudo-scientific ideas centering on quantum physics, the second potential explanation for magic uses a solipsistic model of reality. Everything we see is a product of our own subconscious imagination. Our conscious self then interacts with this creation and we therefore experience our world. This truly makes us all gods , each individual being the sole creator of hir own reality. Greater Magic is simply a case of our subconscious altering things about reality according to its wishes , but in contradiction to the normal rules of science that our conscious self has learned about. All we have to do in strive to be more in touch with our subconscious to achieve effective results in magic. In a solipsistic world, Greater Magic is self-control and self-reflection . As reality is your own subconscious in the first place, then your subconscious can change that reality. ”
3))) “(Just you know, I have read up to Tacitus annals(.?), which I believe is the earliest known official record), and I already concluded that his writing on Jesus as hearsay because Christianity was only mentioned to give reasons for Nero’s(.-.) atrocities.”
------a) Can you prove that his writing on Jesus was hearsay? Or can your opinion be hearsay :D ? I can counter it with “better logic”; you be the judge of course and everybody else.
**If he wanted to do what you say, why go bring a never-existed Christ into the pictures, and not just speak of Christianity/Christians? Why mention its Founder Christ, and His death by Pilate, and lie or be arbitrary in doing so? He’s a historian. Is this reasonable? It doesn’t add up Joe. So he knew of the existence of such a Person and his death by Pilate. Why not (Pliny was a good friend of his, and he spoke of Christ as well.)? And why would he mention it for all his contemporaries to find out??...
It seems his only purpose was to give input regarding the -as he calls it- “pernicious superstition” (negative implication though to His miracles and resurrection?), input as to its formation/founder, as any normal historian would, although with a touch of subjectiveness...
** How -as you say- did he give reason to Nero’s atrocities by mentioning Christians? He hated Christianity although in honesty says that Nero “falsely charged” the Christians of burning Rome! (Annals )
** Tacitus was a historian that -from all his writings it is evident- was very careful on the information he received. He was no frivolous, hasty, commentator, and IN NO WAY just throw out a statement like “Christus, the founder of the name (Christians), was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea in the reign of Tiberius”.
Hence “hearsay” does not even come close to describing his diligent works. He scrutinized -as sources prove- all his information, and yes gave his input on it.
You can buy the book “Shattering The Christ Myth” and see the facts on Tacitus in detail.
That’s all folks!
May God give you His increase!