Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2012, 04:45 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-11-2012 03:59 PM)Janus Wrote:  
Quote:The evidence for somebody named Jesus who was considered by many Jews to be the "Christ" is actually pretty good


Really? OK, I'm waiting for that "pretty good evidence". I'm sure we all are. Feel Free to lay that "pretty good evidence" on us.

Around 0 AD the messiahs were a cottage industry in Palestine. There was one on every second streetcorner, complete with disciples, mindless followers, and groupies. The sects were coming out of the woodwork wherever you looked. So the fact that this Jesus sect eventually came out on top was pure chance. A throw of the dice. Xtians could just as easily have turned out worshipping one Timothy, Mustafa, or Ali today... Big Grin
Of course then they wouldn't have been called Xtians, but rather Timotheans, Mustachios, or Aliens... Big Grin


I keep seeing this assertion about all these innumerable self-proclaimed "Messiahs" that supposedly existed from so many people such as yourself.

Could you please just list 3 of them here for me, as well as the evidence to support your claim.

Thank you.

Shy

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2012, 04:52 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-11-2012 04:45 PM)Free Wrote:  I keep seeing this assertion about all these innumerable self-proclaimed "Messiahs" that supposedly existed from so many people such as yourself.

Could you please just list 3 of them here for me, as well as the evidence to support your claim.

Thank you.

Shy
Here you go.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
11-11-2012, 04:52 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2012 05:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Edit. 0

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2012, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2012 05:49 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
Quote:I keep seeing this assertion about all these innumerable self-proclaimed "Messiahs" that supposedly existed from so many people such as yourself.

Could you please just list 3 of them here for me, as well as the evidence to support your claim.

Thank you.




Here you go.


Thank you, please read below.


Quote:Hint : We gave him the link to the names in another thread. He either didn't bother to click on it, or hopes you didn't notice. (And since I did provide a reference, he *couldn't be talking about me.)




Actually, I did check out the Wiki reference, and it made me wonder how much further investigation you and Janus did to support the claims made by that Wiki title of "Jewish Messiah Claimant."


Are both of you aware that not one of the people on the list from the 1st century has ever been actually entitled as "Messiah" or "Christ?" Nor, has any of them ever been referred to in any way as a Messiah or Christ in antiquity?


Hmmm...


Please find me just ONE person other than Jesus who actually was entitled, or even directly referred to, as "Messiah" or "Christ."

I keep hearing this "assertion" from numerous different people online about the existence of all these so-called "Messiahs and Christs," but for the life of me I have been completely unable to find a single stitch of evidence of anyone else from the 1st century being referred to as "Messiah" or "Christ."


Thank you.

Shy

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2012, 06:25 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-11-2012 05:30 PM)Free Wrote:  Actually, I did check out the Wiki reference, and it made me wonder how much further investigation you and Janus did to support the claims made by that Wiki title of "Jewish Messiah Claimant."

Are both of you aware that not one of the people on the list from the 1st century has ever been actually entitled as "Messiah" or "Christ?" Nor, has any of them ever been referred to in any way as a Messiah or Christ in antiquity?
(11-11-2012 04:45 PM)Free Wrote:  I keep seeing this assertion about all these innumerable self-proclaimed "Messiahs" that supposedly existed from so many people such as yourself.

Could you please just list 3 of them here for me, as well as the evidence to support your claim.
Why are you moving the goalpost? Consider You wanted Janus to list three self-proclaimed Messiahs, not three self-proclaimed Messiahs that were referred to as "Messiah" or "Christ".

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2012, 06:35 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-11-2012 06:25 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(11-11-2012 05:30 PM)Free Wrote:  Actually, I did check out the Wiki reference, and it made me wonder how much further investigation you and Janus did to support the claims made by that Wiki title of "Jewish Messiah Claimant."

Are both of you aware that not one of the people on the list from the 1st century has ever been actually entitled as "Messiah" or "Christ?" Nor, has any of them ever been referred to in any way as a Messiah or Christ in antiquity?
(11-11-2012 04:45 PM)Free Wrote:  I keep seeing this assertion about all these innumerable self-proclaimed "Messiahs" that supposedly existed from so many people such as yourself.

Could you please just list 3 of them here for me, as well as the evidence to support your claim.
Why are you moving the goalpost? Consider You wanted Janus to list three self-proclaimed Messiahs, not three self-proclaimed Messiahs that were referred to as "Messiah" or "Christ".


False accusation. Not moving the goal posts at all. Why?

Because none of the people in his link has any evidence whatsoever that they self-proclaimed themselves to be a Messiah or Christ. None of them were referred to by anyone else in antiquity as being regarded as a Messiah or Christ either.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2012, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2012 06:41 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(10-11-2012 01:15 AM)Noelani Wrote:  Mark, I somehow missed your response to Logica Re: what happened to the Nazarenes. If what you say about the 'Desposyni' is true and they (the Nazarenes) were actual blood relatives of Yeshua and were written about by Eusebius as well as others, then why is the matter of a historical Jesus still being questioned? I actually haven't thoroughly researched this question and really only have heard what Ehrman thinks about this (Example: "Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did. If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed,"). The proofs that Erhman uses seem weak compared to what you stated. How strong is the evidence for an historical Jesus?




Hi Noelani, thanks for your question. I am of the opinion there was an actual Yeshua, and the gospels are very loosely based on some of the things he may have done. I may be wrong. Allow me to cut and paste a short bit of my writing, at the end of which I give my reasons for thinking there was a flesh and blood Yeshua...
Did Yeshua Actually Exist?


The Gospel writers of the second and third centuries were myth-makers. Many historians suspect they did not base their writings on a genuine character, and they may be right. No contemporary archaeological evidence has ever been found for Yeshua’s existence.

Do contemporary historians mention him?Flavius Josephus (37–100 CE) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus), a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.

Justus of Tiberias (35–100 CE) was a first-century Jewish author born in Galilee. Although he wrote extensively about contemporary Jewish history, he never mentioned Yeshua. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10505.html)

Philo-Judæus, a prolific writer and historian, was an Alexandrian Jew who visited Jerusalem in the years Jesus was allegedly teaching and working miracles. He too failed to mention Jesus. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=281&letter=P).

We would expect Jewish religious officials to have said a significant amount about him, but that is not so. The earliest references to him in Judaic rabbinical literature did not occur before the third century CE and bear little relation to the Jesus of the Gospels.What about the Roman and Greek writers of the first century? There are no Roman records of Pilate's or Herod's dealings with Jesus. The Roman world left behind senate records and volumes of other writings, which provide historians with a large amount of data, yet they never mention Jesus. Edward Gibbon (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/egibbon.htm), writing in the latter half of the eighteenth century in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated:"How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.” Gibbon devoted twenty or so years of his life to his seventeen-volume work on the Roman Empire. It is the result of exhaustive research, so we can trust that his comments are authoritative.

Saint Paul, who appeared on the historical scene fifteen plus years after Yeshua’s death, does repeatedly commend his Christ, but he refers to a different character to the human Yeshua (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html).

The surprising truth is that no contemporary official, scribe, merchant, soldier or priest documented the tiniest detail about Yeshua! If he had addressed an audience of thousands, cured cripples, expelled demons, and risen from the dead, surely historians throughout the Roman Empire would have known of him, but it appears they didn’t.

Pliny the younger did mention the existence of Christians in Asia Minor in 112 CE, but wrote nothing about Yeshua the person (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html).

It is said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus. However, this reference is not mentioned by any of the church Fathers (eminent priests and theologians of early Christianity,) and is considered by many historians to be a forgery ( http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm) This remark is, however, frequently referred to in pro-Christian literature.

Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows. If Jesus was entirely mythical, the accounts would be more consistent. There is secular evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, his cousin, and for James, his brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes (discussed later), and Yeshua was their boss between these two. The Nazarenes survived for centuries afterwards, were not Christians, yet genuinely believed Jesus had existed. There were also numerous second century stories about Jesus, some of which still exist, which never made it into the Bible; they were probably based on someone. Paul, who was only a few years younger than Yeshua, claimed he met members of “the Lord’s” family and some of his original disciples.Yeshua wasn’t as remarkable as the Gospels would have us believe. His genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his relative insignificance and been destroyed by evangelical Christians in the second, third, and fourth centuries.

Once Yeshua’s existence is assumed, anyone who writes about him must comb through the Gospels to get specifics about his life. This is unfortunate, because - as discussed in depth in chapter 15 - the Gospels are unreliable records; yet to do so is unavoidable because details about him are lacking in other literature. I will give good reasons for using the parts of the Gospels that I think fit with a realistic story about him.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2012, 07:11 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Hello Mark,

Regarding your quote below:


Quote:Flavius Josephus (37–100 CE) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus), a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.


Is there any good reason why you are rejecting the 2nd mention of Jesus in Antiquities which states the following:


Quote:Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9


And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.


I would be interested in your reasoning, as this mention by Josephus is almost unanimously considered as authentic by historians. All the arguments I have seen against it have been ... very very poor.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2012, 07:15 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2012 07:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Sorry.
That wasn't the link.
As far as Wiki goes, YOU must accept Wiki, as YOU were the one who began to *attempt* to use it, to establish your *so called* "consensus".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants
So, There's a list. However I will not use Wiki, but YOU have now invalidated your prior arguments, by objecting to it.

The argument was not "Was Jesus referred to as Christ". Nice try to move the goal posts. It was "claiming to be the messiah", and someone referring to someone are different. But read on. You are defeated by your own argument, and your own sources.

But very well. It doesn't matter.
The three lines of evidence YOU presented in YOUR argument in the other thread were :

Tacitus, or ONE Roman historian,
Josephus,
and the writings of Saul of Tarsus.

I have already presented an argument why there is no reason to be certain who Tacitus was referring to, as he got the name wrong, and used a title as a name.
So we shall look at other contemporary writers in the Roman world.

Epectetus was a Greek writer on ethics who lived in Rome, and was very interested in the brotherhood of man. He *would* have been very interested in Jesus, had he existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus He never mentions him.

Juvenal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenal and Martial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial
were Roman satirists who made fun of everything they could find in Rome in the First Century world.
They never once mention either Jesus, a "Christ" or Christians. Maybe they just didn't think they were funny.

Seneca the Elder, the greatest writer on Ethics at the time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Elder
never once mentions Jesus, or Christians or a new "love" cult. Neither does his son, Seneca the Younger.

Pliny the Elder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder wrote on all sorts of natural phenomena, and odd occurrences, cults, and superstitions, earthquakes, etc in "De Superstitio". HE does not once mention Jesus, Christians or a Christ.

Galio, the BROTHER of Seneca, who was the (supposed) judge in the trial of Paul in Acts, never once mentions Jesus, Christians. or a Christ. In fact Galio doesn't even mention PAUL.

First Century Jewish historians of the time, such as Justice of Tiberius, who was a native of Galilee, and contemporary of Jesus, wrote the ENTIRE Jewish history of the time, and NEVER ONCE mentions a Jesus, and neither do any of the other Jewish historians who had an opportunity to do do. http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/history....endyear=79

Philo of Alexandria, a Jew, who may have actually been in Jerusalem, on site at the time, for the zombie invasion, who DID even write whole books on the Essenes, and other Jewish cults of Jesus' day NEVER ONCE mentions Jesus or his cult.

Nicholas of Damascus, the court historian, and friend of Herod, never once mentions a Jesus, or Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_of_Damascus

In the Talmud,
a Jesus ben Pandera, is mentioned, who was crucified in 80 BCE, on the day before Passover, is mentioned.
Jesus of Nazareth is never mentioned.
Jesus ben Stada, hanged on the eve of Passover, is mentioned. Still no Jesus of Nazareth.

Re Josephus: HE MENTIONS THE OTHER MESSIAHS.

Apparently some here have never really read the "Jewish Antiquities", or "Antiquities of the Jews", which is the book Josephus wrote.
Before we get to those we shall look at the *so-called* "Testimonium Flavinium". I quote :

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men
as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Apart from the fact, (as this poster has personally observed in the Museo Ambrsiano in Milan) that it's an a different hand and different ink than the original document, there is the obvious and all one has to do is read it to start laughing. :
a. It's a statement of faith.
1. "lawful to call him a man" implies he was something greater than a man, (ie a messiah or a god).
2. It says he rose from the dead.
3. It's a statement about the miracles, as being other than normal.
4. It claims he WAS the Christ.

It has Josephus gushing over Jebus like a 13 year-old over Justin Bieber.

The forger makes three other mistakes.
1. It calls them "Christians" when in fact the Romans, or they, did not call themselves that until AFTER Josephus was dead.
2. It says "tribe" of Christians, which was an error of the forging scribes to try to make it appear a Jew was writing the interpolated text.
3. It refers to "gentiles", which was a word which Josephus NEVER used even once, anywhere else.

Josephus HIMSELF, spent his entire life, ... his life's work, was to leave the impression that Vespasian was the messiah. So for him to at some random point assert something else is VERY suspicious, indeed. Josephus, in the "Antiquities" himself talks about other messiahs contemporary to Jesus, and indeed spends pages and pages and pages looking at :

1. Judas of Gallile
2. John the Baptiser
3. Theodus the Magician
4. The Egyptian

And yet we are to believe that he actually thought Jesus of Nazareth WAS the Christ, and can only spend one paragraph on him ?
In the next paragraph, which does not flow from the interpolated text, he says "at that time there was another calamity".
What ? Jesus was a calamity ? I don't think so.

I call BULLSHIT on Josephus.

Next, the interpolated forged text does not appear until the 4th Century. Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have given their left nut to have such a text. They often quote Josephus, but never mention it.

When it is mentioned, it comes from the biggest liar of all time, Eusebius. Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th
Book of Evangelical Preparation :"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who want to be Deceived." Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history: "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

So much for Josephus.

Paul never met Jesus, and is constantly warning his converts about the other gospels, and other Jesuses.

So there you have it, Using your own stuff. Your Josephus answers your own question. It is seriously shocking that someone who purports to be an historian, apparently have never read the "Jewish Antiquities".

Thumbsup

Pliny, Tacitus, Seutonius debunked : http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm#.UKA1nmebWsw

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-11-2012, 07:21 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(11-11-2012 07:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sorry.
That wasn't the link.
As far as Wiki goes, YOU must accept Wiki, as YOU were the one who began to *attempt* to use it, to establish your *so called* "consensus".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants
So, There's a list. However I will not use Wiki, but YOU have now invalidated your prior arguments, by objecting to it.

But very well. It's not necessary.
The three lines of evidence YOU presented in YOUR argument in the other thread were :
Tacitus, or ONE Roman historian,
Josephus,
and the writings of Saul of Tarsus.

I have already presented an argument why there is no reason to be certain who Tacitus was referring to, as he got the name wrong, and used a title as a name.
So we shall look at other contemporary writers in the Roman world.

Epectetus was a Greek writer on ethics who lived in Rome, and was very interested in the brotherhood of man. He *would have been very interested in Jesus, had he existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus He never mentions him.
Juvenal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenal and Martial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial
were Roman satirists who made fun of everything they could find in Rome in the First Century world.
They never once mention either Jesus, a "Christ" or Christians. Maybe they just didn't think they were funny.
Seneca the Elder, the greatest writer on Ethics at the time, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Elder
never once mentions Jesus, or Christians or a new "love" cult. Neither does his son, Seneca the Younger.
Pliny the Elder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder wrote on all sorts of natural phenomena, and odd occurrences, cults, and superstitions, earthquakes, etc in "De Superstitio". HE does not once mention Jesus, Christians or a Christ.
Galio, the BROTHER of Seneca, who was the (supposed) judge in the trial of Paul in Acts, never once mentions Jesus, Christians. or a Christ. In fact Galio doesn't even mention PAUL.

First Century Jewish historians of the time, such as Justice of Tiberius, who was a native of Galilee, and comtemporary of Jesus, wrote the ENTIRE Jewish history of the time, and NEVER ONCE mentions a Jesus, and neither do any of the other jewish historians who had an opportunity to do do. http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/history....endyear=79

Philo of Alexandria, a Jew, who may have actually been in Jerusalem, on site at the time, for the zombie invasion, who DID even write whole books on the Essenes, and other Jewish cults of Jesus'day NEVER ONCE mentions Jesus or his cult.

Nicholas of Damascus, the court historian, and friend of Herod, never once mentions a Jesus, or Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_of_Damascus

In the Talmud,
a Jesus ben Pandera, is mentioned, who was crucified in 80 BCE, on the day before Passover, is mentioned.
Jesus of Nazareth is never mentioned.
Jesus ben Stada, hanged on the eve of Passover, is mentioned. Still no Jesus of Nazareth.

Re Josephus: HE MENTIONS THE OTHER MESSIAHS.
Apparently some here have never really read the "Jewish Antiquities", or "Antiquities of the Jews", which is the book Josephus wrote.
Before we get to those we shall look at the *so-called* "Testimonium Flavinium".
I quote :
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call
him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men
as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the
Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared
to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold
these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the
tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."


Apart from the fact, (as this poster has personally observed in the Museo Ambrsiano in Milan) that it's an a different hand and different ink than the original document.
there is the obvious and all one has to do is read it to start laughing. :
a. It's a statement of faith. "lawful to call him a man" implies he was something greater than a man, (ie a messiah or a god).
It says he rose from the dead. It's a statement about the miracles, as being other than normal. It claims he WAS the Christ.

It has Josephus gushing over Jebus like a 13 year-old over Justin Bieber.

The forger makes three other mistakes.
1. It calls them "Christians" when in fact the Romans, or they, did not call themselves that until AFTER Josephus was dead.
2. It says "tribe" of Christians, which was an error of the forging scribes to try to make it appear a Jew was writing the interpolated text.
3. It refers to "gentiles", which was a word which Josephus NEVER used even once, anywhere else.

Josephus HIMSELF, spent his entire life, ... his life's work was to leave the impression that Vespasian was the messiah. So for him to at some random point assert something else is VERY suspicious, indeed. Josephus, in the "Antiquities" himself talks about other messiahs contemporary to Jesus, and indeed spends pages and pages and pages looking at :
1. Judas of Gallile
2. John the Baptiser
3. Theodus the Magician
4. The Egyptian

And yet we are to believe that he actually thought Jesus of Nazareth WAS the Christ, and can only spend one paragraph on him ?
In the next paragraph, which does not flow from the interpolated text, he says "at that time there was another calamity".
What ? Jesus was a calamity ? I don't think so.

I call BULLSHIT on Josephus.

Next, the interpolated forged text does not appear until the 4th Century. Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have given their left nut to have such a text. They often quote Josephus, but never mention it.

When it is mentioned, it comes from the biggest liar of all time, Eusebius. Eusebius, the official
propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th
Book of Evangelical Preparation :"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who want to be Deceived." Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history: "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events
which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

So much for Josephus.

Paul never met Jesus, and is constantly warning his converts about the other gospels, and other Jesuses.

So there you have it, Using your own stuff. Your Josephus answers your own question. It is seriously shocking that someone who purports to be an historian, apparently have never read the "Jewish Antiquities".

Thumbsup

Pliny, Tacitus, Seutonius debunked : http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm#.UKA1nmebWsw


Red Herring, all of it.

Now let me steer you back to the 1 question I asked you to answer:

Can you, or anyone else in this thread, find me one single instance of anyone from the first century who self-proclaimed themselves as being a Messiah or Christ, and/or can you find me one single instance of anyone else in antiquity who mentions that anyone else was entitled or referred to as Messiah or Christ?

No more red herrings. Just answer the question.

Shy

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: