This whole thing has blown up in your face. You've flatly stated the speaker in a recorded video link says and indicates something which is the opposite to what anyone watching the film actually sees and hears him say and indicate. That perfectly demonstrates how you are incapable of either telling or identifying the truth. Which of your driving religious imperatives encourages you to first deny the truth then further deceive yourself in false witness by calling others the liar. It'll be the same deception no doubt, which directs you to refer to christian websites in order to enforce one sided misinformation which is forever hoping to turn fictional Jesus into an historical one. Fact is... it's only by the Bible that the Bible itself suggests the Jesus in the Bible is historical. There is no academic independent substantive historical evidence for Jesus, as there is major historical work for even far lesser known characters in history. But for such a supposedly important person as the Son of God, there is no reliable record of existence at any time. Josephus doesn't cut it. There are only a few sentences anyway, proved fraudulent in part, thought false in another. Just Like your style of outright denial and deceit of the video , there is the fraudulent alteration and denial to the works of Josephus which you condone. Fact is... you are in denial and are exposed expressing and perpetuating another dishonest falsehood, ironically by a video link provided by yourself. Your integrity is shot to bits by a psychotic defense for your ridiculous imaginary personal friend found in a fictional story book.
...then reading between the lines of Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass will furnish as much truth. You might do better by understanding that.
Better yet, I recommend watching the Matrix movie and read between the lines of the dialogue. Christ!
Stu - you are a strange bird. Not many people are willing to make such obvious lies. I prove to you Jesus is an historical figure by giving you historical documents. Documents which are accepted by just about every academic and yet you refuse to accept reality. you are one zealous dude. (by the way you are also dead ass wrong with respect to your other point... but I already proved that on our previous threads.)
You are caught in the act of fraudulent misrepresentation, so you think all that's required is to call me a liar? The thick fog of religious piety got you yet again Think it is ok to say wrong is right so long as you do it for jesus? But as a Christian, shouldn't you at least be meeting some minimum moral standard? Won't you be going to hell for not doing so? Although by the tortured reasoning you use, it sounds like youâre already there
<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2307444> stu went to type the proper name Jesus, but his hand began to shake violently with great tribulations...so he went all lower case. LOL!!! Amazing how powerful is a name, like God or Jesus that folks are terrified of giving that name its proper English due...
Stu, I respect your tenacity, I really do.......but you render a dis-service to your argument when bias overcomes fact. When it comes to faith in Christ, I admit I am a polite zealot. I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, hook, line and sinker. I enjoy reading and collecting works of antiquity, and I will readily admit that I have trouble with that passage [ Antiq. xviii 3.3 ], as it seems like an interpolation to me, and I am somewhat certain Josephus was not a christian. However, here are the FACTS: 1) From the fourth century, this passage was quoted by Eusebius and others [ Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. i. 11; Demonstratio Evangelica, iii. 3. 105-106, ed. Gaisford; Psuedo-Hegesippus, de Bello Judaico, ii. 12 ] 2) The oldest Josephus manuscript that I am aware of, the Ambrosianus F.128 sup., which is eleventh century in origin, includes the passage. Therefore, the evidence is that all manuscripts in hand, and older references include the passage. Obviously, this could just prove the antiquity of the insertion, but the facts are as I have stated. The reason I am leery of the passage is because of Origen [A.D. 185-230-254]. In his work, "Against Celsus", Book 1, chapter 47, Origen makes the following statement: "......For in the 18th book of his "Antiquities of the Jews", Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities............" This statement by Origen, would seem to imply that in reading the work of Josephus, he [Origen], did not come across the pro-christian passage, or his remarks would have been different, in my opinion. It wasn't until the 16th century, that questions were raised regarding this passage, and [to my knowledge] it was given to the 19th century for published arguments. The debate has raged on since then. You must respect the works of genuine scholars on both sides of the argument [ actually three sides], which include the following: a) Defending the genuineness: Bretschneider, 1812 Bohmert, 1823 Schodel, 1840 Mayaud, 1858 Langen, 1865 Danko, 1867 Mensinga, 1889 b) Maintaining the theory of interpolation: Giesler, 1846 Heinichen, 1870 Wieseler, 1878 Volkmar, 1882 Scholten, 1882 c) Against the genuineness: Eichstaedt, 1813-1845 Lewitz, 1835 Reuss, 1859 Ernst Gerlach, 1863 Hohne, 1871 D'Avis, 1873 Loman, 1882 Your remarks regarding "raging pride" and "ego", is a rather crude judgement to the work, thought and scholarship of such men as listed above. Respectfully
Thank you for your considered input. But please remember it is not I who is stating there is proof of historicity. My argument is a clear one and somewhat obvious to all but those like jem, to whom contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. As your information confirms, it's the absence of historical validation which means there is no historical Jesus - period. By all accounts then, there is little or no reason to assume an historical Jesus from the text. Moreover there certainly is nothing that amounts to any proof of claimed historicity from any learned scholars. That is the first Fact which jem sits in denial of against all such evidence and the lack thereof. It may be that there is just-cause to question aspects of those texts which may allow some scholars, great or not, prideful or not, egotistic or not, to still want to believe for those or other reasons or because of a bias, that there might have actually been a Jesus of the Bible. Yet the very evidence of there being no proof as you have provided for, suggests bias is not something I have in this argument. It's odd therefore why you think I do. But there is jem's dishonesty in all of this which is clearly made manifest also by a second Fact, one which can be seen in this thread as amounting to a psychotic interpretation of fact, which inversely states what is actually heard and seen in a video clip he's provided. It's a psychosis which deliberately bears false imputation for his own failure to comprehend anything which questions his irrational beliefs and corresponding deceptions. Such dishonesty I contend, is the type of attitude which encouraged fraudulent religionists to alter Josephusâs text. Also perhaps to be a little more generous, is partly what sometimes through the limited subjectivity of their generations, drives some of those otherwise reliable scolars to overlook fundamental fact. However elevating jem to that level of shortcoming is too much of a stretch as he pushes the extreme of denial to depths with that video which makes satan ( or Satan - in case the Troll is trying to mind read again ) look like a saint. However I do agree with you, there are usually three sides to an argument. Which leaves those like jem and any history of Jesus, either out of it altogether or never present in the one side that matters. Yours very truly
Stop trying to act like my argument is based on the questioned passage. How many fricken times do I have to tell you there are two passages. The second passage is accepted by just about every credentialed scholar. Therefore Jesus by definition is a historical figure because he was included in one our main historical accounts of the time. read ... the quote of the passage from wikipedia below. Not the first link but the second. Stop being a dishonest shit for brains.