Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

[res judicata]

Quote from stu:



As if that weren't more than enough, right under your nose again in the same Wiki article you reference, it says this about the word Christ....

• 
  It is often argued that "He was [the] Christ" can only be read as a profession of faith, and Josephus was almost certainly not a Christian, instead remaining a conventional Jew; Josephus' lack of Christianity was even mentioned by early Christian writers prior to Eusebius, such as Origen[45] (as noted above). For example, John Dominic Crossan has put it this way:The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish[46].

The second passage IS being disputed, by Wiki for the reason they give and thus by John Crossan, who they acknowledge in the the same paragraph, due to the words "who was called Christ" The word Christ is the proplem , as in the second passage , just as I said. It's Right in front of you. .
It's also disputed in his books.

It only would require a bit of intelligence to start thinking for yourself. once you finished with the childish name calling, and with christian apologists leading you by the nose, committing forgery like they do , still misrepresenting and misquoting like they do, just to beguile the rationally challenged .

You may apologize now. [/B]

Your statement manifests such a misunderstanding of the situation it would be funny if not so sad.

You have it exactly wrong. So wrong you could not be that stupid.

Here is your quote... "The word Christ is the proplem , as in the second passage , just as I said. It's Right in front of you. .
It's also disputed in his books."

----
It is not the use of the word "Christ" by a Jewish historian that is alarming-- what does not ring true for Crossan and others is that a Jewish Historian would declare Jesus the Christ.

There is no such concern with the second undisputed passage. It would be quite natural for a Jewish historian to say Jesus the so called Christ.

 

[stu]

Quote from res judicata:

Jem told me he can not log in on this computer so he asked that I write this.

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!

Quote from res judicata:

1. You stated JEM was not familiar with Crossan. JEM was aware of the Jesus movement and Crossan since the 80s. That is why he told you about the friend who was a priest. What you did not know is that the priest agreed with Crossan and the Jesus movement. You see how pathetic your responses are... you jump to conclusions which are almost always erroneous.

Ok this is weird, really weird. You are having someone type for you who is now talking for you, and you’re the third person.
This link may help

Jem , would you tell the other Jem, nowhere did I state Jem was not familiar with John Crossan.
The other Jem obviously isn't familiar with John Crossan , or he wouldn't have been so disrespectful toward him. But it was never previously stated Jem (not you Jem, the other Jem) was not familiar with him . Not familiar with J Crossan that is, not Jem the other Jem.

Quote from res judicata:

2. You once again make shit up.
The difference between the bede and wiki passages is inconsequential and probably due to the translators. Your point is specious.

Hello Jem, are you back with us again now. I guess the other 'typing guy' has left his computer so you can use the keyboard yourself. Let's stick with that shall we?

There should be no difference between Bede and Wiki in quoting an agreed historical document, unless the reason for difference is made clear and logical.
If there were a difference between them quoting Magna Carta, then the quotes would be suspect.
There are too many differences to make the content verifiable as historically correct.

You can't wave evidence through as historically verified on a claim of "inconsequential and probably due to the translators".

It appears Bede is suspect to say the least, as what seems to be their or an "interpretation", tends to follow what christian apologists did to fraudulently alter the Josepheus Testimonium Flavianum.

Quote from res judicata:

3. Your Crossan quote... was followed by a statement indicating the statement was tied to the TF... not the undisputed passage.

The second passage is virtually undisputed and unless you wish to go to the source and get a quote from Crossan... your speculations are unfounded.

Even so... what would be your point... that it is too good to be true. That a Jewish historian would not write... the "so called Christ"... when his brother/relative James was being executed for the reason James was calling Jesus the Christ. I suppose you think James is a fabrication too?

What else the didache... the church ruins in Corinth?

You -- are wasting everyone's time with your Jesus as myth speculation.

So far you have produced one author and you have misquoted him.

Possibly one of the most eminent christian historians widely regarded as the leading authority, was quoted and all you do is have the dim-witted effrontery to call him a bozo media whore, just because you don't like what he says.

Even so... what would be the point indeed. You ask for quotes, but no quotes however valid or pertinent will suit you if it doesn't chime with your delusions.

What your personalities can't work out for themselves is, you don't really need any quotes or endless pontification between theologian scholars in fiction, like Bede or whatever.
Josephus's text has been altered . Historians point out the word Christ is unlikely to be used. The word Christ is used in the Testimonium AND that second passage.

The writing claimed as Josephus's, would be so piss poor evidence for a historical Jesus that it does more to illustrate the utter desperation some christians like yourselves Jem (and Jem), perversely aspire to.

But worse still...that's all there is, nothing supporting it from a dozen or so other writers of the time.….. that alone wrecks the whole idea of establishing a historical Jesus on such crappy pseudo-evidence.

Unfortunately with your dual/split personality , now you are twice as wrong as you were before going loco.
But at least you've been able to make a complete prick of yourselves.

 

[stu]

Quote from res judicata:


Your statement manifests such a misunderstanding of the situation it would be funny if not so sad.

You have it exactly wrong. So wrong you could not be that stupid.

Here is your quote... "The word Christ is the proplem , as in the second passage , just as I said. It's Right in front of you. .
It's also disputed in his books."

----
It is not the use of the word "Christ" by a Jewish historian that is alarming-- what does not ring true for Crossan and others is that a Jewish Historian would declare Jesus the Christ.

There is no such concern with the second undisputed passage. It would be quite natural for a Jewish historian to say Jesus the so called Christ.

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 them to be , and dismissed when you don't like what they say.
That does conform to the irrationality of a schizophrenic.

Christ is not a Hebrew word. It is a translation of the Hebrew word Masiah. English being Messiah. Christ is the English term for the Greek Khristos - "the annointed one"

• 
  The phrase "he was the Christ" has been viewed as particularly problematic because it seems to indicate that the author thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Some scholars have argued that Josephus thought that Jewish messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian[47], and view it as unlikely that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfilments before Vespasian.[48]

So quite the contrary, it would not be at all natural for a Jewish historian to use the word Christ for "the annointed one"
Trying to nit pick the tiniest of points is all christain apologists have to go on.
Anyone can see what The not so rational as they would like to make out "rational apologetics" Bede have done, in using a phrase like " the so called Christ".
Pretty much what other christian apologists tried with the Josephus Testimunum..
Maybe someone should tell them it doesn't work.

Whatever, as there is no other historical evidence that Jesus actually existed, it all amounts as an utter fail in trying to alter the situation as it stands in reality. There is no historical evidence Bible Jesus ever existed.

In the meantime Jem you may apologize, and you may tell the other Jem - him too.

 

[jem]

you just made my argument...

"he was the Christ" --- Not likely to be said by a Jewish historian
hence the dispute with TF.

but if historian said

james the brother of Jesus the "so called" Christ.... not problematic.

Hence proof of the historicity of Christ.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

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]

Quote from jem:

but if historian said

james the brother of Jesus the so called Christ.... not problematic for any educated person.
Hence there is no dispute with that second passage by any legitimate historian.

Quote from jem:

[...] -- get a grip -- you now resorting to changing the definition of historicity.

you are a zealout - plain and simple - willing to distort definitions.

Good idea..listen to yourselves
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 Antiquities yet again from .... "who was called Christ " ..which historians dispute anyway .... to something even more ridiculous as....'the so called Christ'.


Between those two personalities of yours one would think there should be some sort of rationality. But obviously not.

 

[jem]

you do not seem to read english or know history...
before you said there was only one passage... now you seem to be ignorant of the wording in those passages.

1. there are two passages..
TF says "he was the Christ"

2. the virtually undisputed passages says - "the so called christ or others translate it as others "called Christ".

Is that so hard for you to comprehend. "called christ" is not the same as saying "he was Christ".



That is why arguing with Jesus as a myth people is like an astronomer arguing with someone saying the moon is made of cheese.
--------------


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.

(the above is TF - note it says "he was the Christ" vs the passage below" which says "so called Christ" which is virtually undisputed)

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

 

[stu]

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 mention is completely unsupported by any other of the many chroniclers of the time.

It's hearsay anyway , the Josephus text is not written as an eye witness account.

Historians dispute it.

It's christian apologists who have already been found to have committed forgery with other similar Josephus text .

You are now relying on quoting suspicious text from self proclaimed christian apologists, whilst ignoring the different quote which you supplied and relied on previously from Wiki.

They would be only 4 words in the whole of history that were being used to try and claim Jesus actiually existed as a historical person.

As already pointed out, it does not reach any level of historical evidence.

There is none for Jesus anywhere whatsoever at all . Get over it.

You logged in ok?

 

[jem]

You could not be a bigger fraud.

Why don't you quote the two passages and provide a link to a legitimate source.

Every source I found has "called Christ" or so "called christ" in the non TF passage.



By the way I have not relied on different passages. I have relied on the virtually undisputed passage in my argument with you for years... not just on this thread --- go back and check other threads. You are a bold face liar or sort of brain dead by zeal.... this argument is not new... but apparently you are stunned by the existence of a virtually undisputed passage in Josephus.

When you keep misquoting the content of the passages - I re-post the passages. Its easier for future readers to see that you are not telling the truth. Now I guess it finally rattled around your brain and sunk in.

So now this is another appropriate re post since refuse to support your myth theory with citations to scholars.


2. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"

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

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

You could not be a bigger fraud.

Why don't you quote the two passages and provide a link to a legitimate source.

Every source I found has "called Christ" or so "called christ" in the non TF passage.



By the way I have not relied on different passages. I have relied on the virtually undisputed passage in my argument with you for years... not just on this thread --- go back and check other threads. You are a bold face liar or sort of brain dead by zeal.... this argument is not new... but apparently you are stunned by the existence of a virtually undisputed passage in Josephus.

When you keep misquoting the content of the passages - I re-post the passages. Its easier for future readers to see that you are not telling the truth. Now I guess it finally rattled around your brain and sunk in.

So now this is another appropriate re post since refuse to support your myth theory with citations to scholars.


2. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"

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

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 they cannot both be what the authentic text states.

One source (Wiki) says ""who was called Christ"....
your other source (Bede) which says ".. the so called Christ".

So from the get go, all the stuff you claim is resting on passages which dispute themselves..

Which is it.? As most everywhere shows the disputed "who was called Christ" and not further reconstructed or interpolated
" ..the so called Christ"..

"I have relied on the virtually undisputed passage.."
is a contradiction in terms. It is admitting to some dispute.

The Christ word is the problem. You can keep ignoring the fact all you want but it won’t change a thing. You’ll still be wrong and ignorant on this.

The Christ word is in dispute. Josephus writing in Hebrew would use the word Masiah (Messiah ) as the existing jewish annointed one , not Khristos (Christ)a new annointed one .
This is reason why Wiki sums up John Crossan finding such text as “ too Christian” for Josephus.
It's why apologists like Bede want to change the text to say "...the so called Christ" trying to make it sound like Josephus has heard of this so called christ.
But that is hearsay anyway. Not historical evidence that Christ or Jesus whatever, actually existed

There is no point in my providing links or citations to scholars, when your kneejerk unintelligent response is to call a most highly respected scholar " a bozo media whore" because you don't like the findings.

I would say your "future readers" will see you pointlessly repeating yourself with silly replies making false accusations and addressing non of the points being raised, whilst I respond to all of yours.

So bewitched by Jesus superstition you jump at anything to defend your nonsense.




btw the link you keep repeating which is a source for your the virtually undisputed passage... is disputed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

.... flagged again

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2010)"

That will go no doubt when christian apologist like yourself get over the fact that the passage is disputed.

 

[jem]

Its only disputed by a few zealouts.


2. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"

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