Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Half way through, I looked up Josephus, the man was apparently a coward and how can one trust the words of a coward...A turncoat...Can one really trust what a turncoat states?...
Half way through, I looked up Josephus, the man was apparently a coward and how can one trust the words of a coward...A turncoat...Can one really trust what a turncoat states?...
The Testemony of Josephus has been long known to be a forgery and was never taken seriously by Historians.
Quote:
A False Witness
Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:
"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."
So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.
Before buying into what Chris White has to say, research the ancient authors that he quotes and research whether is he presenting this in an unbiased manner...
And what those ancient authors write is just what they observe that the Chrestians believed, they do not validate that belief but just validate the existence of the belief...
With validation of the existence of Yeshua, it still does not validate whether he was Moshiach or not...
The sages had their theological disagreements with Christianity, but these were not things they discussed in the Talmud. And while Christianity in its earliest phases was a minority movement of Jews who otherwise practiced Judaism, the rabbis who participated in the debates in the Talmud were preoccupied with other matters. - The Jewish Press » » Is The Talmud Anti-Christian?
If the above bolded is true, makes one wonder what happened that it got the way it is today...
but these were not things they discussed in the Talmud. And while Christianity in its earliest phases was a minority movement of Jews who otherwise practiced Judaism, the rabbis who participated in the debates in the Talmud were preoccupied with other matters.
If the above bolded is true, makes one wonder what happened that it got the way it is today...
a bunch of Jews practicing Judaism is not news
since JC when he walked the earth as a human was a Jew, much like yeshiva students today, they sat around practicing Judaism. just like today.
the talmud has no reason to write about a bunch of Jews sitting around being Jewish. JC did not try to start a new religion. He walked the earth being a Jew.
After his death the Roman government used this dead Jew for their own political agenda, and around 300 C.E. the Roman Catholic church came into being. Here is a capsule summary:
"For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-07-2015 at 03:08 PM..
a bunch of Jews practicing Judaism is not news
since JC when he walked the earth as a human was a Jew, much like yeshiva students today, they sat around practicing Judaism. just like today.
the talmud has no reason to write about a bunch of Jews sitting around being Jewish. JC did not try to start a new religion. He walked the earth being a Jew.
After his death the Roman government used this dead Jew for their own political agenda, and around 300 C.E. the Roman Catholic church came into being. Here is a capsule summary:
"For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism."
There's no need for salvation, as it's based on the concept of sin. Sin is an absurd concept made up to justify the need for a diety in the first place. Ancient con men are still successful at pulling people under their spell it seems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
