Quote from jem:
you are an insane fraud.
Here is a link which goes over many of the sources.
Remember that the passage from the Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities is virtually undisputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
While very few scholars believe the whole Testimonium is genuine,[75] most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,[76] since some portions are written in his style.[77]
In the second, brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[78] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[79] Hegesippus, in a work produced around 165-175, also has an account of James that has irreconcilable conflicts with Josephus regarding the death of James the Just (c70 CE vs Josephus' c64).[80][81][82]
In antiquity, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ,[83] as it seems to suggest in the quote above. L. Michael White argued against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the 3rd century, who quoted from Josephus's Antiquities, do not mention this passage.[84] However, Alice Whealey has shown that it is far from clear that any 3rd century Christians other than Origen quoted from or even directly knew Antiquities.[85]
The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James. Arguably the main reason to accept that Josephus also wrote a version of the Testimonium Flavianum is the fact that Jerome (died in 420 AD) and Michael the Syrian (died in 1199 AD) quote literal translations of the text in a form reading, more skeptically than the textus receptus, that "he was thought to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." The identical wording of Jerome and Michael the Syrian indicates the existence of an originally Greek Testimonium in the 5th century, since Latin Christian scholars and Syriac scholars did not read each others' works, but both commonly translated Greek Christian works.[citation needed]
Tacitus
Main article: Tacitus on Christ
Tacitus (c. 56âc. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[52]
There have been suggestions that this was a Christian interpolation but most scholars conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus.[53] For example, R. E. Van Voorst noted the improbability that later Christians would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".[54] John P. Meier asserts that there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the argument that a scribe may have introduced the passage into the text.[55]
There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[56]
The pejorative description of the suppression of Christianity (calling it a superstition, for instance) is not likely based on any statements Christians themselves may have made to Tacitus.
Tacitus is known to have drawn on many earlier historical works now lost to us in the Annals, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator.[57]
Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."[58] Indeed, Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[59] R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians.[60][61]
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity (the source of which remains unclear): Christus was a Jew and a criminal whom Pontius Pilate had executed. He authored a new religious movement that began in Judea and was called Christianity which was widespread around the city of Rome during Nero's reign.[62]
and another
Suetonius
Main article: Suetonius on Christ
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69â140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome".[63]
The event was noted in Acts 18:2. The term Chrestus also appears in some later texts applied to Jesus, and Robert Graves,[64] among others,[65] consider it a variant spelling of Christ, or at least a reasonable spelling error. On the other hand, Chrestus was itself a common name, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.[66] With regard to Jewish persecution around the time to which this passage refers, the Jewish Encyclopedia states: "... in 49â50, in consequence of dissensions among them regarding the arrival of the Messiah, they were forbidden to hold religious services. The leaders in the controversy, and many others of the Jewish citizens, left the city".[67]
Another suggestion as to why Chrestus may not be Christ is based on the fact Suetonius refers to Jews not Christians in this passage, even though in his Life of Nero he shows some knowledge of the sect's existence. One solution to this problem, however, lies in the fact that the early Christians had not yet separated from their Jewish origin at this time.[68][69][70] Even discounting all these points, this passage offers little information about Jesus himself.[58]
Why do you keep on puking the same old dead arguments over and over? Is it because you just can't face let alone deal with the facts that refute them all?
"most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,"
yes, authentic words such as "the" "it" "them".
" The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,"
Lol! .... "substantially authentic" ....except for the Jesus and Christ bits!
Christian apologists coming out with terms like "substantially authentic" does not formulate what is history and what is historical.
Many other learned writers , founders of Christianity, at the time of Jospheus and later would all have mentioned, quoted or referred to Josepheus had he made any acknowledgment to Jesus or a Christ at the time.
Not one of them did . Because Josepheus didn't. His writings didn't.
There are only the peculiarly tortured and dysfunctional streams of unsupportable explanations by Christian apologists as to why no proper historical records whatsoever should be considered as historical.
It becomes more and more farcical as information hits the public domain, even revered publications such as this now find they can no longer avoid the affirmation ....
- Encyclopedia Britannica:
"That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands, no sane critic can believe."
It is generally and widely recognized that the authenticity of any reference by Josepheus to "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" is extremely controversial and very much questioned by those who study these things.
Tacitus
There are so many reasons why this does not form any sort of historical validation for Jesus or much else, but this alone is sufficient for validating historically.
The story is plagerized by Tacitus nearly word for word off of another writer , Sulpicius Severus, a fifth century Christian.
Difference....Sulpicius Severus made no mention or reference to a Christ!!
It's the 21st century now, too late for this nonsense to stand any more.
The lies deceit and fraud of early Christians and their church, who wrongly attribute ancient text and present their own forgery for so called evidence, are out in the open. Cat's out of the bag.
Suetonius
"this passage offers little information about Jesus himself.[58]
So why do you even bother to put it forward as historical evidence when it plainly cannot be? You don't even read what you cut and paste from your religious only website quote bucket do you?
Its' the evidence makes the person or event historical, not the other way around.
No matter how much you wish it wasnât so, there is NOTHING that stands as historical evidence for bible Jesus.
Tough.
. .