Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

Quote from jem:

Once again its Stu against the educated.

Its pretty funny.
Stu why don't you quote from university educated historians disputing the second passage in Josephus?

You say my quote does not mean anything. yet the historicity of Jesus article it comes from has over 100 quotes. Thats real academics do... they support their findings. That what anyone who is credible does.

Its no wonder you think it means nothing. You never provide any support for your sorry conjectures.

You have no answer for the physicists I quote on other threads.
You have no answer for the historians I quote on this thread.
You quarrel with dictionary definitions on other threads.

don't you ever get tired of playing the zealout?
More...



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 corrupt understanding .. So what's new.

It's only recently, christian academics , educated apologists , have decided to argue any controversy they can make or ambiguity they can create from the second smaller part of the forgery.

Where honest argument is made , no historian has ever been able to show that Josephus did or would have written the first or second part of the disputed text, or that it could be verified as authentic.

Christian apologists are arguing for the historical existence of Jesus by a few words out of what has been agreed for 400 years to be a Christian apologetic forgery. There should be plenty of historical evidence that Jesus existed for the claims made. There is none , only forged and dishonestly attributed writing and highly contentious argument made by christian apologists.

In any event as already mentioned, the whole passage expels itself as historical evidence of Jesus as it is written towards the end of the first century, so it is 100 years late, and there is nothing anywhere to corroborate it as there is with all other people and places historical .

Go do some study and educate yourself.

If you need quotes from historians here's one .....
  • John Dominic Crossan the Irish-American religious scholar, archaeologist , anthropologist and New Testament historian and former Catholic priest says;

    "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish."

Quote from jem:
You have no answer for the physicists I quote on other threads.
You have no answer for the historians I quote on this thread.
You quarrel with dictionary definitions on other threads.

don't you ever get tired of playing the zealout?
More...

The physicist himself provides the answer for you. You ignore it.
I answered who you call the historians you quote on this thread. You ignore it.
If you think it somehow wrong to quarrel with dictionary definitions, you'd better go back to grunt language.


All you ever do is ignore anything that shows you wrong. and give no answers to the ridiculous things you say.
You even ignore the physicist whose own words tell you what you say about him is wrong.

You study nothing put to you , learn nothing and consider nothing if it jars with your perverse convictions.

Here's a quote from Ricter that is most applicable to you..
"I can tell by your reply [...] you are absolutely certain of everything, and believe you know more than everyone."
 
Your distortions can only be defined as the lies of a zealout.

Why do you create such misleading arguments.

There are two passages... One's authenticity is undisputed.
 
Quote from jem:

Your distortions can only be defined as the lies of a zealout.

Why do you create such misleading arguments.

There are two passages... One's authenticity is undisputed.
More...
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 authenticated forgery it is because…

It is out of Josephuses lifetime so must be inadmissible hearsay - unless it can be independently validated to historical standards.

It can't.

There is NOTHING else historically corroborating Jesus existed or the Josephus passage.

Today christians are trying to argue part of a passage they have to agree is a forgery made by christians, might not be a forgery, even though it cannot in any case be historical evidence that Jesus existed .

That's an indication of how desperate religion gets.
Just like you. In constant denial of reality.

As with all childish imaginary friends, yours is impervious to reality through its own pretence.
 
Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD.

One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, although most modern scholars agree that it is partially authentic.[1]

The second passage mentions James as the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), possibly James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

as far as hearsay -- get a grip -- you now resorting to changing the definition of historicity.

you are a zealout - plain and simple - willing to distort definitions.
 
Quote from jem:

Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD.

One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, although most modern scholars agree that it is partially authentic.[1]

The second passage mentions James as the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), possibly James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

as far as hearsay -- get a grip -- you now resorting to changing the definition of historicity.

you are a zealout - plain and simple - willing to distort definitions.
More...
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 a christian apologist's Wiki page link is not an authentication of history.

I'll tell you what, you get a grip. The Josephus text is hearsay for the reasons given.

Instead of just cursing and name calling, tell me how a few words of text written 100 years after an unproven event [Jesus], along with no other independent historical evidence in support of that event , is anything but hearsay?

It certainly is not historical evidence of a historical event.
 
you know you are a zealout when you deny simple facts. First of all this linked articles in wiki does not contain that warning you "quote". surprised?

as to the important point you ignore you can google the separate passages and pick them up from numerous sources.



here are the two separate passages...

Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.

First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

...

It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.


http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm


http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
 
Quote from jem:

you know you are a zealout when you deny simple facts. First of all this linked articles in wiki does not contain that warning you "quote". surprised?

as to the important point you ignore you can google the separate passages and pick them up from numerous sources.



here are the two separate passages...

Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.

First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

...

It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.


http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm


http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
More...

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 has an additional section "Arguments against authenticity" the warning has gone.
It's those christian apologists who have to face a simple fact they don't get free reign on Wiki.



Historians consider Testimonium Flavianum a forgery.
The separate passage you have posted is considered to have been tampered with. No surprise there either.
I supplied the reference to a most highly regarded theological historian scholar who shows why. Go and Google him. Learn something


Was Jesus historical because Josephus was an eye witness and there is other independent corroborating evidence confirming what he and therefore others saw?
NO.

Writing about 100 years after supposed Jesus is supposed to have died, did Josephus provide some new historical finding based on the writing of other historical evidence?
NO

That's not surprising either because christian apologists would not have to focus on Josephus scraps after being forced into conceding the fraud if there were any other historical evidence.

There are a great number of writers considered historians of the supposed time of Christ yet NOT ONE mentions or provides any historicity for Jesus .

References in Testimonium Flavianum are known to be forged and both it and the other passage you copied can anyway only be hearsay at best for the reasons given. What don't you get?

23 pages and still - not one single word provides any evidence of a historical Jesus.
 
This passage is not TF... when are you going to educate yourself Stu?

Quote from jem:


Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

...




http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm


http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
More...
 
Quote from jem:

This passage is not TF... when are you going to educate yourself Stu?
More...
I didn't say it was. When are you going to read properly Jem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top