IamJoseph

It is legitimate to conclude the Josephus entry is a later cut and paste job. There is no contemporary writings of Josephus, even though he wrote in Hebrew and Greek - these were obviously destroyed and a later latin edition made. That only the later, non-original writings remain is not credible and is very suspicious. A host of christian scholars have agreed this is a fake entry and there is no outside evidence of it's disputation.

The passage in question appears an obvious variance of the beliefs of the times of 70 CE, does not match the rest of the prose, is not in context, and applies only to a much later European view. Josephus did not write in Latin, nor would any Jews have translated this work - it is a later European forgery. Of note is that while the later made Gospels wants to have its writings confirmed by Josephus - it stays well clear of mentioning the sacrifice of the Jews against Rome, and which is so copiously detailed in Josephus - this constitutes a terrible lie-by-omission.

IamJoseph

You need to read some pre-christian Greek and Roman archives before making such a conclusion. Discover Mithras, his 25th of December birthday, and why SUN-day replaces saturday.

spamandham

Sheer added to ignore list.

mountainman

"A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",

--- Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, 1762.

Censure of the TF

Chaucer

I'm perfectly well aware of all this reasoning. I've heard it all applied to Antiq. 18 before. It is still an eccentric position re Antiq. 20, and it's still a mark of someone who's drunk too much of the mythicist kool-aid to simply say Josephus never mentions Jesus of Nazareth at all. That remains inexcusably misleading and dishonest, and it's unconscionable that others should defend it as not highly unscrupulous in the extreme. AA's first statement on this remains a lie unless one specifies that Antiq. 20 is taken as an interpolation as well. AA didn't so specify. <edit>

Chaucer

IamJoseph

Why - is there some other evidential factors I'm not aware of?

This is not about the christian belief today, which no doubt is genuine as are all other beliefs. But for centuries the blood libels <edit> were also held as genuine beliefs: why can't the Gospels be seen as a protocolian document - same peoples, same target, same conspiracy theories - thus its not a hypothetical point. :constern01:

IamJoseph

If there was in fact a conspiracy by some Jews against another Jew - because they disagreed with his claims, and then they conspired to have him crucified by mass murdering Romans - I would stand shoulder to shoulder condeming those Jews. The other imperative and encumbent side of this coin is what if the story is a total fake - how does one deal with it? If the latter is not factored in - it is a simple one-eyed-jack view.

spin

You are confused. There was nothing dishonest about saying that Josephus said nothing about Jesus. You are confusing the current state of the text with the state produced by Josephus. aa5874 is probably right that Josephus said nothing about Jesus, though we could debate the issue, for we only have the current state of the text, ie that which surfaced in the 15 century (or whenever).

You know that people think that neither passage was written by Josephus, yet still you make your wounded performance. If I hadn't seen such histrionics before I'd have said, "you must be joking."

He didn't call you a liar. Your erroneous assumptions should show you how religious ideas can develop. Now you religiously believe that you are right when you break the netiquette of the forum. It doesn't change the fact that you did and you are wrong for doing so. Apologize and stop trying to deflect.


spin

aa5874

I have isolated the fatal flaw in the HJers proposal that Jesus was only human. HJers have no credible source of antiquity to support their fatal proposal.

HJers can only try to refute or try to attack the credibilty of others who do not support their proposal that Jesus was only human.

Now, it is not of any great concern that Chaucer called me a liar since I have come to the realization that Chaucer has nothing else to say in order to support his proposal that Jesus was only.

I do not wish that Chaucer be banned since through him I will be able to show once and for all that HJers have nothing but the LIES found in the NT and Church writings to defend their proposal that Jesus was only human.

This is proof once again that IGNORE really serves no real useful purpose. Even if you put someone on IGNORE you still are able to see some of their post when others not on IGNORE reply to those on IGNORE.

And I really don't know what you want to communicate to me, but this is my communication to you.

Jesus of the NTwas a pack of LIES.

Jesus of the NT did not ever exist the during the time of Tiberius and Pilate.

I hope you get the message.

I have no-one on IGNORE not even Chaucer, it is extremely important and imperative that I know exactly what he and anyone have produced to defend their proposal that Jesus was only human.

Chaucer, like all HJers, have produced nothing and I cannot IGNORE that.

Toto

locked for cleanup