Materialists

Nothing to do with fear. A few reasons:

1. It gives you an unfair advantage cuzz I won't generally trash-talk back.
2. I hate getting constantly needled and insulted. I don't have much pride, but even I can only take so much...
3. It wastes my time to read 3-4 paragraphs of trash talking to get to your one or two sentences of issues.

Again, look at Turok's posts as models. He lasers in and gets his point across generally in a few sentences...

 

but this is simply not true. in particular, no Jew requires that even of another Jew - much less a non-Jew. if you wish to argue Jews are not "religionists", we can have that discussion, but short of such a claim your statement is false because Judaism is a rather obvious existance proof to the contrary.

the conclusion does not follow. it may or may not be true. but being allegorical, it simply doesn't matter.

i am a (more or less) torah-observant Jew. i assume that means i qualify as a "religionist". as a member of the civiilization that wrote the bulk of what is considered scripture, i am telling you flat out you don't have to use the book. use whatever book/path you like to help you live a decent life - it doesn't matter - what you believe - how you believe it - is YOUR business.

all i care is that when/if we interact, you're a decent human being.

that's it.

you can't lump all "religionists" together. it's not fair, and undermines your legitimate points.

 

Im referring to the well known evidence that the earlier
copies could not have contained the quote.

All the following biblical scholars make the case that
the quote would have shown up in other authors
documents if it had indeed existed in earlier copies.
Even authors who were aware of the book with STRONG REASONS
to quote it, fail to do so. (Because it wasnt there).

But of course... JEM claims that ALL of these
biblical scholars ARE WHACKOS since they dont
support his silly position. LMAOOOOOO


This is a clear forgery. The more you study it, the more clear
it becomes that it must be rejected for numerous reasons.



peace

axeman





Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother. It interrupts the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus. Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ” (Answer to Dr. Chandler).


Again Dr. Lardner says: “This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist” (Lardner’s Works, vol.I, chap. iv).


The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says: “Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, ii), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine” (Christian Records, p. 30).



The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his “Lost and Hostile Gospels,” says: “This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 192), Tertullian (A. D. 193) and Origen (A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).”

Canon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: “The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious” (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46). The following, from Dr. Farrar’s pen, is to be found in the “Encyclopedia Britannica”: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.” “There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious-- one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain.” (Ibid)


Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America’s ablest Christian apologists, says: “Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious” (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

 

Oh I just love this snippet:

The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:

Josephus, Arrian, Philo- Judaeus, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Paterculus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.

Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library.


A WHOLE LIBRARY JEM! Did you hear that? LOL.
There goes your sad excuse about a tiny bookshelf of missing
documents as your evidence

But notice!!
Other than the forged non-contemporary Josephus quote,
CHRIST IS NOT MENTIONED A SINGLE TIME.


Ooooooooooops


peace

axeman

 

Well damn...im liking these Jews more and more every day.

What a REASONABLE thing to say


Im curious Damir..... what is the "general/popular" jewish
position when it comes to an atheist who has led a good
and moral life?

Any hell fire waiting for them?
Will they somehow be punished for this?


peace

axeman

 

a great many jews - even many observant jews - are essentially atheist. maybe "naturalist" would be a closer term, but imo that's close enough for this discussion - and should answer your question.

there is no hell fire waiting for anybody. it will be a rare jew indeed who believes people are being created just to be tortured and then destroyed. what would be the point?

punished for living a moral life? again, what would be the point?

 

a great many jews - even many observant jews - are essentially atheist. maybe "naturalist" would be a closer term, but imo that's close enough for this discussion - and should answer your question.

What percentage of jews do not posses god belief?
A guesstimate is fine.



there is no hell fire waiting for anybody. it will be a rare jew indeed who believes people are being created just to be tortured and then destroyed. what would be the point?

LOL... well I always ask the xtians the same question.
But you gotta understand.. I lived in the SOUTH for almost 10 years.
I heard a LOT of this, just about every week of the year.


punished for living a moral life? again, what would be the point?

Again....LOL.... but by many xtians definition... a life as an atheist
is immoral be definition.


peace

axeman

 

I'm curious about this. Isn't this more a characteristic of reformed Jews?

And exactly what do you mean by observant?

 

And, out of curiosity, are orthodox, reformed and conservative roughly equal in proportion. (I realize there's a lot of grey in there probably...)

 

if you ask the neo-nazis, all of us are atheists and aspiring antichrists, lol.

across all streams? i would guess at least a third. probably more. i'm not that unusual - my reaons for not eating pork etc are not based on Moshe having a tete-a-tete with the Big Guy at mount sinai - i do it because it is a tradition i find useful in maintaining discipline in other facets of my life.

as long as they don't act on such a belief by violating the basic human rights of atheists, i don't have a problem with c'ians believing that.