Christianity ruins families.

[rah]

Better PR

[giblets]

Suetonius says that a man name christ was worshipped by Christians and were blamed for Nero's fires.

Yeah, that has nothing to do with a resurrection. It's just a mention of what a specific religious sect was worshiping. Whether Christians are correct or not, you're going to get writers that mention the existence of Christians.

The same is true of any Roman Historian. Why are the Christians accurate transmitters in one case, but not the other?

Christians have a pro-Christianity bias.

Plenty of nobodies were executed. Why is it that Christians worshipped Christ, and not one of the others executed by the Romans?

Better PR

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, that has nothing to do with a resurrection. It's just a mention of what a specific religious sect was worshiping. Whether Christians are correct or not, you're going to get writers that mention the existence of Christians.

The point being that this refutes your point that he was a nobody. Obviously he was a somebody.

And you left out my question. Any evidence that the passage in Josephus is an interpolation other than personal prejudice?

[Ming]

Robert Plomp...

No need for me to go point by point with quotes, because as you noted, we really don't disagree all that much, and that BOTH of us appear to have been responding to stuff that really hadn't been said or implied by either one of us.

I will continue to disagree with you when comes to the issue of Faith. You make comments like "So you think that the believe in Zeus is as valid as the believe in JHWH?". And I would respond yes. Personally I don't think the relgion was a correct one, especially in light of modern times. But it was valid to the true believers at the time, who I'm sure had all kind of interpreted "facts" based on their Faith in Zeus.

And while I laugh out loud about the aliens in Scientology, for those that actually believe (and pay the high amounts of money needed to reach the highest levels of understanding ) their faith allows them to believe it, and can see the facts that come out of their faith. In my opinion, it's just a scam that rips people off, but for those that believe, they take it very seriously, and do truly believe it.

On the other hand, some of the teachings of Christ appear as silly to outsiders who don't understand. Holy Communion is one of those... the whole eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ. I've had people ask if Chrisitians were cannibles in ancient times... and why would we want to his body and drink his blood. And that's just one example...

So while I can personally "disagree" with the beliefs of some religions (how many virgins was it again that you get if you die in the name of your god ), I still have to say that for those that believe, they have the same right to claim that they are the true relgion.

I will also disagree with you on how you see Faith. You see Faith building on the facts. I see it the other way around. I see Faith being used to pick and use the "facts" that support your position.

While all religions share many common "elements", they are all differnt. Some more so than others... And all religions have followers that have varing levels of faith and commitment... But I still stand by my OPINION, that they all have the same right to claim they are the true religion (wack job cults not included). You might through your own Faith, see facts supporting your individual opinions/faith, but they can do the same. Because at the end of the day, Faith is what it's all about. And with so many different people, beleiving so many different things, a lot of them are simply wrong, and that's a fact

[giblets]

The point being that this refutes your point that he was a nobody. Obviously he was a somebody.

He's unimportant to non-Christians. Only Christians think something noteworthy happened after Jesus was crucified.

And you left out my question. Any evidence that the passage in Josephus is an interpolation other than personal prejudice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephu...t_authenticity

[Ben Kenobi]

Only Christians think something noteworthy happened after Jesus was crucified.

Josephus was a christian?

Wow, enthralling research.

Nothing in there that says anything other than you do. There's no proof other than the BAM that it is an interpolation.

[giblets]

In his surviving works Origen does not mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews. Origen makes mention of the second passage about Jesus in Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9) as well as Josephus' reference to John the Baptist which occurs in the same chapter (xviii) as the Testimonium. Origen states that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ" , but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. This suggests that the reference to Jesus as "the Christ" in Josephus is secondary. It is widely held that the original Testimonium was worded "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." According to Alice Whealey, this original version was also probably what Eusebius had at his disposal. Whealey has argued that the wording of Michael the Syrian's Testimonium in particular, which employs the word mistabra, meaning "was supposed," has a skeptical connotation, as evidenced in the Syriac New Testament where it is used to translate Greek enomizeto of Luke 3:23. She has argued that Origen's probable exposure to a reading like Greek enomizeto (corresponding to the Syriac mistabra) in the original version of the Testimonium would readily explain Origen's statement that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ.

Gee, sounds like the text was tampered with and the original was more skeptical toward Christian claims.

[Ben Kenobi]

This suggests that the reference to Jesus as "the Christ" in Josephus is secondary

There's no evidence of any Christians prior to Eusebius having access to the book of Josephus. Eusebius commentates on the reference to say the exact same thing that we do today.

So if it was an interpolation, it had to happen sometime between Origen, who never heard of the book, or Eusebius who states it in the modern form.

That gives you 150 years.

Tertullian doesn't reference it either, so that's problematic for your 'theory'.

There's no actual citations of the passage showing that it was an interpolation. It's all just modern conjecture imposed on what Josephus actually wrote.

Remember, athiest skepticism is also biased.

[giblets]

Great, now you're flat out denying that Origen read Antiquities of the Jews. I guess the article that includes citations is wrong about that.

[MOBIUS]

Far more than "somebody wrote it" so it must be true

Ben is a douche.

There, I wrote it - it must be true...

[Ben Kenobi]

Origen states that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ" , but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ.

Origen never actually says, 'this passage does not contain the declaration that Jesus was the Christ. All origen is saying is that Josephus was a Jew, and that when he says, 'Jesus was the Christ', that he was not speaking his personal beliefs.

And it's not clear that Origen actually did have the book in front of him, or if he was referencing it second hand.

[Berzerker]

The number of 120 or so given in the Bible is a reasonable number. A lot of people, without access to modern medicine/etc, claim to live/have lived/etc similar amounts of time.

Additionally, numerical ages/etc which are more likely to be approximations/estimations/etc.

Jon

the bible doesn't say the years of Moses (or any man) will be 120 - it says the spirit of god will be with man for 120 years. Those are god's years, not ours. Multiply that by the sumerian "sar" (3600) and we get 432,000 years. Not only is this a precessional number, its linked to the years and chronology of various kings' lists, including I believe the biblical patriarchs. But this was before the Flood sent to end humanity. So why is this important? Because it takes us back more in line with the evolutionary evidence, the time frame within which we eventually became sapien sapiens.

[Berzerker]

On the other hand, some of the teachings of Christ appear as silly to outsiders who don't understand. Holy Communion is one of those... the whole eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ. I've had people ask if Chrisitians were cannibles in ancient times... and why would we want to his body and drink his blood. And that's just one example...

South Park The poor nun didn't have a chance explaining that one to the kids

[Kidlicious]

the bible doesn't say the years of Moses (or any man) will be 120 - it says the spirit of god will be with man for 120 years. Those are god's years, not ours. Multiply that by the sumerian "sar" (3600) and we get 432,000 years. Not only is this a precessional number, its linked to the years and chronology of various kings' lists, including I believe the biblical patriarchs. But this was before the Flood sent to end humanity. So why is this important? Because it takes us back more in line with the evolutionary evidence, the time frame within which we eventually became sapien sapiens.

Do you mind telling us where you get this stuff?

btw, Jesus is the only God that came to earth and modelled a way of life for his followers to follow. That's why he prayed.

[Kidlicious]

On the other hand, some of the teachings of Christ appear as silly to outsiders who don't understand. Holy Communion is one of those... the whole eating of the body and drinking of the blood of Christ. I've had people ask if Chrisitians were cannibles in ancient times... and why would we want to his body and drink his blood. And that's just one example...

It's only symbolic for most Protestants.