sonmvayina:
Jesus is serapis. Read my thread on that..

Jesus never ever existed. Even the birth narrative will tell you that it was all made up.

Christianity started as the worship of serapis in Egypt.

The Messiah God promised the jews is coming to rule and usher in an era of peace, end all wars and oppression..NEVER TO DIE FOR SINS. God hates human sacrifice..

Not True. YHWH loves human sacrifice

PastorAIO:


Not True. YHWH loves human sacrifice

Might be true. YHWH is not the God of the jews. Yahweh is one of the 70 sons of Enlil that is married to asherah

I troway salute

sonmvayina:


Might be true. YHWH is not the God of the jews. Yahweh is one of the 70 sons of Enlil that is married to asherah

@auntyvera01, as to your question, I refer you to Dorothy Milne Murdock: The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled in which she cites John Eleazer Remsburg writing of the famous (infamous?) Testimonium Flavianum passage;

Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines....

Murdock also cites religious skeptic Gordon Stein;

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.

—http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Oladimeji247:
And does that somehow mean that James, his brother, did not become an apostle sometime shortly before, or after the crucifixion? The Gospel records chronicle the situation in real time, during the purported life of Jesus. Also, the Gospel records have different lists of the 12 apostles. (Matt 10:2, Luke 6;13). This either shows inaccuracy, or possibly how apostles were changed as the ministry progressed.

And if we are going to glean any history out of the NT, we can refer to Acts where they assigned apostleship to Mattias because Judas was dead. This is proof again that apostles were changed out as the religion progressed.

Therefore, his brother James could have easily be appointed as an apostle.

LOL.

Tamaratonye1:
@auntyvera01, as to your question, I refer you to Dorothy Milne Murdock: The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled in which she cites John Eleazer Remsburg writing of the famous (infamous?) Testimonium Flavianum passage;



Murdock also cites religious skeptic Gordon Stein;


—http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

False

1. There are countless paragraphs by Josephus much shorter than the Testimonium.

2. If Josephus was an orthodox Jew who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, why would he write much about him?

Dismissed.

Oladimeji247:


2. If Josephus was an orthodox Jew who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, why would he write much about him?

Gee, if you thought of that, then why didn't Eusebius? Oh right, He didn't give a shit. He was just spinning a yarn for the dolts. By the way, this is exactly the reason why scholars believe the Testimonium Flavianum is an insertion. If Josephus had believed Jesus was the messiah he'd have written much more than that small paragraph. It was his style of writing that he went into great, lengthy detail about historical figures.

Anyways, to answer your question, Christianity was, supposedly, still a Jewish internal movement, as a sect of 1st Century Judaism. It was important enough that the High Priest required the Expulsion Curses be read, at the end of the 1st Century. One would have expected him to comment definitively about that problem and it's origins if anything about it was what it's portrayed as.

http://lawrenceschiffman.com/the-benedic...the-minim/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkat_haMinim

But, for anybody totally denying the historicity of Jesus, the fact is, this sect was going, and strong enough to pose a threat by the end of the 1st Century. Something or someone had to have got it going.

Tamaratonye1:

1. Gee, if you thought of that, then why didn't Eusebius? Oh right, He didn't give a shit. He was just spinning a yarn for the dolts. By the way, this is exactly the reason why scholars believe the Testimonium Flavianum is an insertion. If Josephus had believed Jesus was the messiah he'd have written much more than that small paragraph. It was his style of writing that he went into great, lengthy detail about historical figures.

2. Anyways, to answer your question, Christianity was, supposedly, still a Jewish internal movement, as a sect of 1st Century Judaism. It was important enough that the High Priest required the Expulsion Curses be read, at the end of the 1st Century.

3. One would have expected him to comment definitively about that problem and it's origins if anything about it was what it's portrayed as.

http://lawrenceschiffman.com/the-benedic...the-minim/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkat_haMinim

4. But, for anybody totally denying the historicity of Jesus, the fact is, this sect was going, and strong enough to pose a threat by the end of the 1st Century. Something or someone had to have got it going.

1. You are not serious. The vast majority consensus from the scholars regarding the Testimonium is that it almost certainly had a nucleus regarding Jesus. Sure, in the Greek transcripts we see what appears to be a Christianaized alteration of the original text regarding Jesus, but virtually all scholars agree that, because we have the Syriac and Arabic versions of the Testimonium, there was with almost certainly a mention of Jesus, that he was regarded as the Christ, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate.

Since we have the text in 3 different languages, and they vary from each other, it demonstrates that there was almost certainly something written about Jesus Christ by Josephus in that section.

The modern scholars who disagree can be counted on the fingers of one hand, with likely a couple fingers left over. At last count, over 100 scholars world-wide are in agreement. These are experts in the field, and their reasons for agreeing are because of the physical evidence.

Now, if we take 4 or 5 scientists who disagree that the fossil record indicates evolution, while 125 agree that it does indicate evolution, what would you think of those 5 scientists? Studying the fossil record is not unlike studying history, because in fact it is the study of the history of evolution.

Therefore, if we can dismiss the opinions of 5 crackpot scientists, equally we can dismiss the opinions of 5 crackpot historians, such as Richard Carrier and that lot of wannabe somebodies.

And if we can dismiss the opinions of crackpot historians, then we can most certainly dismiss the opinions of crackpot armchair critics such as yourself.

2. That would be irrelevant if he was an "orthodox" Jew. To him, Jesus was just a pretender, and not actually a Messiah.

3. The thing is, about the time Josephus was writing his book, Christianity was outlawed in the Roman Empire. Christians were hated by the Romans, and with Josephus being "kept" by the Romans, and writing Antiquities FOR the Roman audience, the most he would likely say is basically what we see. He was giving a historical account of the Jews, and he probably started writing his book years before AD 93, since it's so large. To him, and to the Romans, Christianity and Jesus called Christ were not much more than an annoyance at the time. It was spreading, yes, but in the AD 80s the Romans were still killing Christians simply because, as Tacitus stated 20 years later, "they were a class hated for their abominations."

Josephus (supposedly) called the Christians a "tribe." As a Jew, this would not be unusual, as Jews know all about the 12 Tribes of Israel. To him, the Christians represented another somewhat pseudo tribe of Israel. Even at his time the Christians were still considered Jews, but were disliked by the orthodox Jews who didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, calling them a tribe is quite accurate, even if he didn't say it.

4. That is the logical conclusion based on everything we know.

How will you feel if someone should introduce Jesus' true followers to you today?
Well they're in all the countries on this planet and everything Jesus foretold about them is happening just as he said!
In fact there is no single word that's missing in all what Jesus said about his true followers, but don't be surprised that just as he was hated and vilified by religious people of his time, exactly the same thing is the way religious people today treats Jesus' true followers! Matthew 10:22-25

May you have PEACE!

auntyvera01:

The existence of Jesus is a hot topic in religious arguments.
There's D 1st group that beleives dat Jesus actually existed in d past as a historical figure but he wasn't a miracle man or magician.
The 2nd group views Jesus exactly d way he's described in D bible: the miracle working son of God who came to offer humans salvation.
Are they one in the same, the same thing.
I believe they are the same thing.
any dissenters?
please explain

Oladimeji247:
1. You are not serious. The vast majority consensus from the scholars regarding the Testimonium is that it almost certainly had a nucleus regarding Jesus. Sure, in the Greek transcripts we see what appears to be a Christianaized alteration of the original text regarding Jesus, but virtually all scholars agree that, because we have the Syriac and Arabic versions of the Testimonium, there was with almost certainly a mention of Jesus, that he was regarded as the Christ, and that he was executed by Pontius Pilate.

Since we have the text in 3 different languages, and they vary from each other, it demonstrates that there was almost certainly something written about Jesus Christ by Josephus in that section.

The modern scholars who disagree can be counted on the fingers of one hand, with likely a couple fingers left over. At last count, over 100 scholars world-wide are in agreement. These are experts in the field, and their reasons for agreeing are because of the physical evidence.

Now, if we take 4 or 5 scientists who disagree that the fossil record indicates evolution, while 125 agree that it does indicate evolution, what would you think of those 5 scientists? Studying the fossil record is not unlike studying history, because in fact it is the study of the history of evolution.

Therefore, if we can dismiss the opinions of 5 crackpot scientists, equally we can dismiss the opinions of 5 crackpot historians, such as Richard Carrier and that lot of wannabe somebodies.

And if we can dismiss the opinions of crackpot historians, then we can most certainly dismiss the opinions of crackpot armchair critics such as yourself.

Walls of text that amount to poppycock.

Citations needed for the bolded? And take out all the scholars who work for religious institutions - inherent conflict of interest.

The consensus of scholars argument is not convincing. Virtually all of them were educated by others who never once actually asked the question, as though it had any merit. They have no secret stash of documents or knowledge. They know nothing that is not available to us. We know what they know. What they can demonstrate is not convincing.

I don't care how many scholars say they are convinced. Let them show us their convincing evidence, and stop trying to muddy the waters with the consensus argument. If they are so sure, let's see the evidence.

Oladimeji247:
That would be irrelevant if he was an "orthodox" Jew. To him, Jesus was just a pretender, and not actually a Messiah.

False. He was an historian, and the movement was real. It impacted Jewish culture. The point is not who or what the founder was. The point is that there was an important historical change going on. He didn't just write about messiahs.

I notice how you keep using Orthodox Jew for a time period when I am fairly certain there was simply the Jew and no sects to warrant a separation to recognize one as Orthodox or untraditional.