Search results

" I can tell by your reply [...]. that you are absolutely certain of everything, and believe you know more than everyone" : Ricter 2010 It was "zealots" then who disputed the christian version of the Josephus Testimonium and found it had been forged by christians. For one of the same...

Back to name calling and going round in circles I see. But you're right, you've been doing it for years. You are relying on different passages, linking 2 sources as confirmation of an ancient document which you call the non TF passage. There is no problem with translation in that regard so...

Reposting that same crappy nonsense won't help you any. Your split personality has been talking complete rubbish for long time now. The Antiquites don't say "the so called christ" . But even IF Josephus had written "the so called christ" it would prove nothing. The claimed...

Good idea..listen to yourselves :D Lol. You don't even know what you are posting any more. .."but if a historian said" ....wtf is that supposed to mean? ..don't bother ....you're clearly too far gone to make any sense. It's a good 1900 years too late to try and alter the wording of...

The word Christ is the problem. Why don't you get one of your other personalities to check back what the other one has already posted. Then both of you can read what your own quoted reference says. Or perhaps even the quotes with which you provide yourselves are good only when you want...

Jem see a doctor. It seems you have not been able to log into your computer on numerous occasions over a period of around 3 weeks. The dude who is typing for you... is you. omg! Ok this is weird, really weird. You are having someone type for you who is now talking for you, and...

Translation: Give no reason, .... call it a reason, and then say reasoning is a waste of time. Some great reasoning you have going on there :D

You did a little research with the emphasis on little, for you clearly don't want to learn of any awkward facts. So here's the passage you refer to, from your Bede link.... " But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and...

"I was friends with a priest who knew him...." how very infantile you sound. Which all goes to show the true colors of you and your hopelessly lost argument. Ricter thought you flexible. What a joke. As if you could ever be wrong. But You are wrong. Again and again. John Crossan...

Still name calling I see Do you keep doing that because you can't admit to ever being wrong? I said ... Historians consider Testimonium Flavianum a forgery. The separate passage you have posted is considered to have been tampered with. I supplied the reference to a most highly...

I didn't say it was. When are you going to read properly Jem?

Nope, not surprised you are still name calling and no, not surprised, because it’s where I saw the warning. Not surprised either that you think a cut&paste makes you right. Why not try thinking for yoursef for once. The page has been edited/updated as per the usual Wiki stuff , now it...

You are still ignoring this... That link contains these warnings : "The neutrality of this article is disputed. This article is supported by Jesus work group. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, " Speaks for itself. Constantly repeating...

You are wrong and name calling me doesn't make you right. There is one passage. Historians dispute the authenticity of it. Consensus being it is a forgery. Some argue parts of it might be genuine. Nevertheless, it cannot be historical proof of Jesus , even if it were not the...

What pathetic comments you make. Since the 17th century , academics , the educated, both secular and apologist scholars, have disputed the only few lines of text that would support a possible historical Jesus . They found it was a forgery. A purposely dishonest act by Christians to...

1. How many times do you have to be told what you call the second passage, but which is only a few words, remains contentious Both accepted by some scholars and disputed by some scholars. Mentioning characters Josephus could have had no real knowledge of, as they are unproven as ever...

Ricter, Just a heads up. The arguments are not syllogisms, One syllogism requires 2 premises and a conclusion. In light of that are you sure you mean tautological? Because if my first statement is tautological then so is yours. Of course it isn't. The first statement made is your first...

Desparately back to making your own rubbish up , using alternative screen names to try and support yourself. For that reason Jem...you are a schizo.:p The Josephus passage is said to have been written late 1st century. That is not an account "a few years after" the supposed Jesus's...

You seem to think the Bible is substantive evidence, so I doubt you understand the meaning of the word. There is NO history of Jesus ever existing. You need a credible historian to show credible history. There is none to show.

I agree , it's fair format for the subject matter, although I say the premise is faulty, as it would appear more accurate to state "All things proven to exist have empirical evidence." Apart from what I call your faulty premise, I find it strange you felt the need to make a syllogism...