FOLYKAZE:
It's so disappointing that I trusted you will see the inconsistencies in the Testimonium Flavianum by reading a little more.[s] But please for the sake of those following this thread, I will point out the inconsistencies.

Firstly, Testimonium Flavianum was first mentioned by Eusebius of Ceasera in his voluminous publication titled Church History.

Secondly, in the Testimonium, Eusebius mentioned that Josephus recorded in the Antiquities about the Jewish suffering and the siege of the temple was a punishment for slewing James, the just man.

Thirdly, Eusebius rooted his argument on Origen commentaries on Matthew’s Gospel and Against Celsus.

Fourthly, in these two references Eusebius cited, it is mentioned there that:
i. "" And the wonderful thing is, that, though he (Josephus) did not accept Jesus as the Christ,... ""
ii. ""Now this writer (Josephus), although not believing in Jesus as the Christ...""

Fifthly, Origen commentaries indicated he had before him copies of Josephus Wars and Antiquities. However, from his own copies, Josephus neither accept Jesus as Christ nor does Josephus believe Jesus as Christ.

VI. Regarding calling James the brother of Jesus, Origen does not say that he is quoting anything verbatim from Josephus.

VII. Josephus didn't attribute the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James.

Isn't it therefore glaring that Origen's Josephus did not accept or believe Jesus as Christ, but Eusebius cooked up a Testimonium wherein his own version of Josephus believes, accepts, and acknowledge that Jesus is Christ?

The contradiction gave an hint that there are two Josephus' publications here, and one is fake. Well, it isn't worth too much investigation before one could point out that that of Eusebius is fraud.

1. Eusebius Testimonium became known in the fourth century. Yet, those who were before him, Justin Martyr 140AD, Clement of Alexandria 192AD, Tertullian 193AD, and our known Origen 230AD didn't know about this testimony.

2. Eusebius is a known forger. He cooked up a correspondence between Jesus and Lord and Abgar at Edessa. Joseph Wheless in Forgery In Christianity, and Bart Ehrman in Forgery and counter-forgery shows overwhelming evidences that Eusebius forged the correspondence and another one between Paul and Seneca.

3. Pious fraud isn't a new thing in christiandom. Martin Luther was quoted saying "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

4. Been the only person in possession of the Testimonium in the fourth century, it is evident that Eusebius tampered the original work of Josephus.[/s]

Seeing that you've calmed down, it's so disappointing that you are too involved in seeing the whole, you couldn't admit to see that in a smaller detail, there is no inconsistency about Jesus and who He is, in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Volume Three, Book 18 (i.e. Sedition of the Jews against Pontius Pilate. Concerning Christ. And what befel Paulina, and the Jews at Rome) Chapter 3, section below:

3. 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 among 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.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

The knowledge is out there that Josephus was one of biggest political sell outs and stooges when Roman was at the heights of one of its world domination, so there is no doubt about inconsistencies in his literary work, however I am holding you down to the fact that Josephus acknowledged the existence of Jesus and Him being the Christ.

Of course, there are inconsistencies in the Testimonium Flavianum, you are not telling anything I don't already know about that, but the fact remains, in terms of the little detail about Jesus, Josephus admitted Jesus' existence and supported that He is Christ. None of these assertions, are latter additions, insertions or copyist's poetic licence

HedwigesMaduro:


You believe Socrates existed without his writing (but through another person's writing). But to believe Jesus existence, you need His writing. Do you see what I'm pointing out to you?

Hw does believing I Socrates existence proves Jesus existence?

HedwigesMaduro:


I'm not using that to prove the existence of Jesus. I'm using it to show how silly the premise for your logic is. Geez!.

Ok, I don’t believe they existed, can you show me prove of the existence of a Jesus?

Workch:
Ok, I don’t believe they existed, can you show me prove of the existence of a Jesus?

Do you believe in historical records about Roman emperors? Do you believe Nero existed? Do you believe the stories about the persecution of Christians during the Roman era? Now if you do, do you believe people would agree to be killed without resistance based on some fictitious fella?

Workch:
Hw does believing I Socrates existence proves Jesus existence?

It doesn't. It just shows bias on your part against the subject of discussion.

BassReeves:
Seeing that you've calmed down, it's so disappointing that you are too involved in seeing the whole, you couldn't admit to see that in a smaller detail, there is no inconsistency about Jesus and who He is, in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Volume Three, Book 18 (i.e. Sedition of the Jews against Pontius Pilate. Concerning Christ. And what befel Paulina, and the Jews at Rome) Chapter 3, section below:

3. 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 among 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.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

The knowledge is out there that Josephus was one of biggest political sell outs and stooges when Roman was at the heights of one of its world domination, so there is no doubt about inconsistencies in his literary work, however I am holding you down to the fact that Josephus acknowledged the existence of Jesus and Him being the Christ.

Of course, there are inconsistencies in the Testimonium Flavianum, you are not telling anything I don't already know about that, but the fact remains, in terms of the little detail about Jesus, Josephus admitted Jesus' existence and supported that He is Christ. None of these assertions, are latter additions, insertions or copyist's poetic licence

Beyond the inconsistences in the manuscript, the colored contradictory statements of yours have shown vividly that you are inconsistent, and prolly don't have an idea on this subject matter. I had to reduce your 'facts' because I can't find any.

1. Antiquities 18.3 and 20.9 is the same thing as Testimonium Flavianum. It is hilarious though that you admitted Testimonium Flavianum is inconsistent but Antiquities is not.

2. In your own words "Josephus acknowledged the existence of Jesus and Him being the Christ." But Origen in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and apologetic treatise against Celsus mentioned that Josephus neither accept nor believe Jesus as Christ. Can you tell us how Josephus who neither believe nor accept Jesus as Christ turns to penning the Testimonium?

3. Antiquities scholars and Christian apologists have ruled out the Testimonium as fraud. Can you please present your facts with contrary position?

4. Explain why Josippon a Hebrew variant of Antiquities lacks the passage in question.

5. The Testimonium in Antiquities 18 interrupted the contextual narration of Josephus who was explaining the foolishness of the Jew. Can you therefore explain the immediate turn at .3 which seems to support Jesus who is a Jew?



I, Budaatum your friend, and Workch would love to see you address the above queries. Thanks

HedwigesMaduro:


It doesn't. It just shows bias on your part against the subject of discussion.

But I am not talking about Socrates right now.

HedwigesMaduro:


Do you believe in historical records about Roman emperors? Do you believe Nero existed? Do you believe the stories about the persecution of Christians during the Roman era? Now if you do, do you believe people would agree to be killed without resistance based on some fictitious fella?

nope

FOLYKAZE:
[s]Beyond the inconsistences in the manuscript, the colored contradictory statements of yours have shown vividly that you are inconsistent, and prolly don't have an idea on this subject matter. I had to reduce your 'facts' because I can't find any.

1. Antiquities 18.3 and 20.9 is the same thing as Testimonium Flavianum. It is hilarious though that you admitted Testimonium Flavianum is inconsistent but Antiquities is not.

2. In your own words "Josephus acknowledged the existence of Jesus and Him being the Christ." But Origen in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and apologetic treatise against Celsus mentioned that Josephus neither accept nor believe Jesus as Christ. Can you tell us how Josephus who neither believe nor accept Jesus as Christ turns to penning the Testimonium?

3. Antiquities scholars and Christian apologists have ruled out the Testimonium as fraud. Can you please present your facts with contrary position?

4. Explain why Josippon a Hebrew variant of Antiquities lacks the passage in question.

5. The Testimonium in Antiquities 18 interrupted the contextual narration of Josephus who was explaining the foolishness of the Jew. Can you therefore explain the immediate turn at .3 which seems to support Jesus who is a Jew?

I, Budaatum your friend, and Workch would love to see you address the above queries. Thanks[/s]

Where did I ever say that the Antiquities is not with inconsistencies? As far as I am concerned both, the Antiquities, Testimonium Flavianum and other Josephus works have their fair share of inconsistencies, however for the umpteenth time, I reiterate that I am pinning you down on a smaller detail, which is that Josephus in Antiquities 18.3 penned:
3. 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 among 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.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

I remain vehemently sticking to all that Josephus wrote in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 as admittance of the existence of Jesus and seen as the Christ, albeit, personally as a Jew, Josephus did not necesarily believe what he, as a matter of duty and commission had to record down, nonetheless he did mention the word Christ at least twice, thats talking of in Antiquities 18.3 and 20.9

Origen in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and apologetic treatise against Celsus mentioned that Josephus neither accept nor believe Jesus as Christ, but it doesnt compute to Josephus never wrote about the existence of Jesus who other believed to be Christ. Now for Origen to have complained that Josephus had mentioned Jesus, while refusing to recognise Jesus as the Messiah.

I have no vested interest nor gain in putting up representation for any or all versions of the Testimonium out there, so no can do, is my response to your request

Josephus had from the outset said that multiple copies and/or variants of Antiquities could be found. Even said, copies of his work made their way East in various forms, so if thats the case, it sounds like adulteration waiting to happen

Virtually all scholars of antiquity up to the 21st century agree that Jesus existed. The transformer is out there to hug for any that disagree. Ouch, it hurt me more typing that way than it'll hurt the easily offended

HedwigesMaduro:


Do you believe in historical records about Roman emperors? Do you believe Nero existed? Do you believe the stories about the persecution of Christians during the Roman era? Now if you do, do you believe people would agree to be killed without resistance based on some fictitious fella?

It was the worshippers of serapis..

FOLYKAZE:

That question was thrown at you to help you see the illogical submission that the Jesus mentioned an Antiquities XX is Jesus of Nazareth. I had thought you and BassReeves will easily identify the inconsistencies in the Testimonium, and that the original form of the passage can never be gotten again.

Foly, you presented Antiquities as evidence, and you claim same it isn't reliable evidence.

Do you need me to argue it isn't reliable evidence when the question is, why did you present what you know is unreliable evidence?

FOLYKAZE:

It's so disappointing that I trusted you will see the inconsistencies in the Testimonium Flavianum by reading a little more. But please for the sake of those following this thread, I will point out the inconsistencies.

Before pointing out the inconsistencies in the Testimonium Flavianum, please tell me why you repeatedly presented the Testimonium Flavianum as evidence!

FOLYKAZE:


That was an oversight. Never really look into the content on the page. Was really concern on the fact that Jesus ben Damneus was a high priest of the Herodian second temple.

Just as you admitted to have never read the books you presented as evidence for you claim!

Isn't that like arguing blindly?

budaatum:


Just as you admitted to have never read the books you presented as evidence for you claim!

Isn't that like arguing blindly?

Is Wikipedia a book?

budaatum:


Before pointing out the inconsistencies in the Testimonium Flavianum, please tell me why you repeatedly presented the Testimonium Flavianum as evidence!

When and where did I present Testimonium Flavianum as evidence? Your comrade, BassReeves copied and paste the list of Jesuses mentioned in Josephus work. My argument so far is that what he presented, Testimonium Flavianum, is a forged document. You no connect with the discussion self. Trying hard to play smart

budaatum:


Foly, you presented Antiquities as evidence, and you claim same it isn't reliable evidence.

Do you need me to argue it isn't reliable evidence when the question is, why did you present what you know is unreliable evidence?

What are you smoking? Me? Where? Presented Antiquities as evidence or I was stamping down Testimonium as forged document?

That wrap no good for your body. Causes some amnesia

BassReeves:
Where did I ever say that the Antiquities is not with inconsistencies? As far as I am concerned both, the Antiquities, Testimonium Flavianum and other Josephus works have their fair share of inconsistencies, however for the umpteenth time, I reiterate that I am pinning you down on a smaller detail, which is that Josephus in Antiquities 18.3 penned:
3. 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 among 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.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html

I remain vehemently sticking to all that Josephus wrote in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 as admittance of the existence of Jesus and seen as the Christ, albeit, personally as a Jew, Josephus did not necesarily believe what he, as a matter of duty and commission had to record down, nonetheless he did mention the word Christ at least twice, thats talking of in Antiquities 18.3 and 20.9

Origen in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and apologetic treatise against Celsus mentioned that Josephus neither accept nor believe Jesus as Christ, but it doesnt compute to Josephus never wrote about the existence of Jesus who other believed to be Christ. Now for Origen to have complained that Josephus had mentioned Jesus, while refusing to recognise Jesus as the Messiah.

I have no vested interest nor gain in putting up representation for any or all versions of the Testimonium out there, so no can do, is my response to your request

Josephus had from the outset said that multiple copies and/or variants of Antiquities could be found. Even said, copies of his work made their way East in various forms, so if thats the case, it sounds like adulteration waiting to happen

Virtually all scholars of antiquity up to the 21st century agree that Jesus existed. The transformer is out there to hug for any that disagree. Ouch, it hurt me more typing that way than it'll hurt the easily offended

Off point garbage again. I expected sound rebuttal and comprehensive counter-argument. But if these is the best you can offer, I beg to Fashi

BassReeves:
budaatum rein in the emotions please.

I think you should refrain from the condescending insults please. We've done well so far considering.

BassReeves:
It was not the hour for Eve to pluck the fruit of the TKGE to eat. Period.

One could argue it was the time, since God must have known she would and did nothing to prevent her.

BassReeves:

Eve believed, Cain believed. Uzzah believed. Nadab and Abihu, believed. I can go on with others who believed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions of Christians believe

Eve believed she would surely die on the day she ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? So what you saying? Was she trying to commit suicide when she ate what you claim she believed would kill her, or are you saying she believed the serpent who told her she would not die, her eyes would open and she would become like Gods?

As for Nabab and Ahibu and co, Read here what buda said when the "Lord said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance, but Moses alone is to approach the Lord; the others must not come near. And the people may not come up with him”.

BassReeves:
With the utmost respect and humility dare I say you're perverting the word of God

First, we are discussing a book written by humans, and not a book written by God.

Second, if you critically go through the Gospels I bet you'd accuse Christ too of perverting what is written in the book. Many did, so I'd claim to stand in the best company ever and accept your compliment. Thanks.

BassReeves:
budaatum, please why not give a thorough biblical hermeneutics and epistemological breakdown of individually what 'Good', 'Evil' and even as a whole, the 'Tree' itself, symbolises in the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil framework

I would love to, and odd enough, though you don't seem to have realised it yet, that is precisely what you and I and some others began doing in our first engagement. Unfortunately people whom I believe would competently be able to do this with me (I can't do it alone), are stuck in not even being able to accept what they read with their very own eyes, which is that Eve, and Adam, did not surely die on the day that they ate the fruit they'd been told would kill them on the day that they ate it. Instead, their eyes opened, they became self employed and they populated the earth with billions of people (at least they did if you submit to them being the first humans), some of whom today are on the way to Mars and Uranus, as in, not only ruling over the earth but over faraway planets too.

Do know that I impatiently await the day when we Nigerians shall critically analyse "'Good', 'Evil' and even as a whole, the 'Tree' itself, symbolises in the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil framework", and not only a "hermeneutics and epistemological breakdown", but a complete deconstruction in every way possible, because, nations that do this go on to achieve greater things than mere believers do. First, however, is an acceptance of that which we see with our eyes, as opposed to that which we have convinced ourselves to believe in our minds, because, our beliefs is what you are asking us to analyse, and Christ did say its as difficult to become as a child who has abandoned their beliefs, as a camel going through the needle's eye.

BassReeves:
To what end is having knowledge, if it is used inappropriately?

This is a scary statement, and you really must consider how and why slaves in America were kept ignorant to see how your opinion above has already been used. Also, study how almanjeris are created. Both show who benefits, and is a strategy used by the Roman Catholic Church until a certain Luther freed us from their tyranny.

If you fear you would use knowledge inappropriately, you might convince yourself to remain without knowledge. Scarier still is if you fear some others might inappropriately use knowledge, you are likely to keep them ignorant! Then there's the case of What is inappropriate use of knowledge? And inappropriate to whom?

BassReeves:
Makes you wonder and appreciate that knowledge that can make miracles happen needs to be guarded carefully, as if it falls into the wrong hands, miracles become disasters in no time.

Imagine if Jesus reasoned as you have here. No way would he have asked if you know not you are gods because he couldn't have possibly have expected you to know, and he definitely would never have told you you'd do greater things than he did, which would definitely require knowledge.

Bass, the issue with most is they parrot what they've been told to believe and either don't know they do so or just refuse to admit that is what they do, or they'd find it hard to convince themself that people who they read went on to live for some 800 years after, died on the day that they ate that which would supposedly kill them on the day that they ate it.

Christ is the Light of the World. As in that which gives you understanding of the world. If one misunderstands what he taught (and what one reads) one would remain in darkness, which is ignorance.

FOLYKAZE:


What are you smoking? Me? Where? Presented Antiquities as evidence or I was stamping down Testimonium as forged document?

That wrap no good for your body. Causes some amnesia

If you had bothered to read what you sourced, you'd have realised you were presenting Antiquities as evidence. It's either that or you were writing incoherently!

FOLYKAZE:


That question should be directed to Eusebius who invoked the ' discredited' Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus antiquity to prove the existence of historical Jesus.

Unknown to him and the church, Josephus was only referring to Jesus ben Damneus the high-priest whose brother - James the Just was reportedly killed by Ananus ben Ananus.

It however came out that what Origen, Eusebius, and church fathers hold to their chest as a secular evidence of historical Jesus is forgery.

Historically, James existed and his brother who was elected as high priest is Jesus Damneus, not Jesus christ.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus

Regardless, note that the conversation has moved on from where you are stuck. Sorry if I don't let you hold us back from evolving.

22jumpstreet:


This shows you are far from nature...and by extension "God"

Lol@ this shows you are far from nature


That's exactly what religion does to people's brain; they lose every bit reasoning.

HedwigesMaduro:


Do you believe in historical records about Roman emperors? Do you believe Nero existed? Do you believe the stories about the persecution of Christians during the Roman era? Now if you do, do you believe people would agree to be killed without resistance based on some fictitious fella?

Trash.
You are trying to justify your last question with your previous questions.

So you don't know humans since ages were ready to die for nothing?


It's just like asking if people are willing to die for PDP or APC when they still know none of them have served the purpose they were elected

oaroloye:

How can one hate others, when one wants Mercy from God?

If you hate others, no matter the provocation or offense, you cannot have Mercy from God.

The person who wrote the above does not hate atheists.

True or False?

budaatum:


If you had bothered to read what you sourced, you'd have realised you were presenting Antiquities as evidence. It's either that or you were writing incoherently!



Regardless, note that the conversation has moved on from where you are stuck. Sorry if I don't let you hold us back from evolving.

That question should be directed to Eusebius who invoked the 'discredited' Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus antiquity to prove the existence of historical Jesus.

No wonder Muttley and Reed dey woze you

FOLYKAZE:

No wonder Muttley and Reed dey woze you.

Explain what the point of the following was You did repeatedly present it when asked for evidence of your claim!

FOLYKAZE:
I am disappointed in you Budda. You have a lot to read please.

Take sometimes off here
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html
An excerpt from that page

And mind your glasshouse when throwing stones.

budaatum:


Explain what the point of the following was You did repeatedly present it when asked for evidence of your claim!

And mind your glasshouse when throwing stones.

budaatum:
Funnier still that the Romans "succeeded in overthrowing James the Just" who is recorded to be a brother of Jesus.

Was 'James the Just' a fictional character too then?

FOLYKAZE:
Historically, James existed and his brother who was elected as high priest is Jesus Damneus, not Jesus christ.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html

Woman, I no get time for your back and forth game. You may save the rabble rouser for the next guy.

FOLYKAZE:

Woman, I no get time for your back and forth game. You may save the rabble rouser for the next guy.

My womanhood too much for you as usual? How is it relevant here, or are you just being your usual beast?

See you again presenting a book you say is discredited!

Jman24:




Trash.
You are trying to justify your last question with your previous questions.

So you don't know humans since ages were ready to die for nothing?


It's just like asking if people are willing to die for PDP or APC when they still know none of them have served the purpose they were elected

So, PDP and APC are nothing? Seems you switch off your reasoning faculty (if you had any, that is) before you post. Read what you wrote slowly and your analogy as supplied.

FOLYKAZE:
When and where did I present Testimonium Flavianum as evidence? Your comrade, BassReeves copied and paste the list of Jesuses mentioned in Josephus work. My argument so far is that what he presented, Testimonium Flavianum, is a forged document. You no connect with the discussion self. Trying hard to play smart

You're trying hard to playing half smart because I never at any time presented Testimonium Flavianum, you introduced it during your arguments.

Fyi, go recheck my post to see that I clearly stated in my post that I have presented a full list of all the Jesuses in Josephus' work, namely from:
1. Antiquities of the Jews
2. The Jewish War
3. The Life of Flavius Josephus

If you really are 'connect with the discussion self' sic you would see that I am pinning you down on the fact and evidence that in the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus recorded the existence of Jesus. Now you won't be able to dispute that Josephus never typed that information. From personal experience, I quote quite a lot of things I dont believe in, e.g. I have typed: prophet Mohammed pbhu, but if dont mean I believe him to be a prophet. Josephus was commissioned to write, hence he wrote about the existence of Jesus, though he doesnt believe Him to be the Christ. Whats so difficult in that to understand?

budaatum:
And personally, any God that tells anyone not to eat fruits of knowledge is a bokoharam god that must be disobeyed, especially if it is found that that supposed god lied that you would die if you did.

---

---

---

budaatum:
I think you should refrain from the condescending insults please. We've done well so far considering.

Please my friendly advice and brotherly warning, isnt to be deliberately misconstrued as condescending insults.
What I should see as an insult to God, but overlooked, is the disparaging remarks you printed about God seen reproduced above
I know you're capable of carrying on a conversation without loading it with such vituperates put together by you as seen above.
Suggesting that you to rein in your emotions isnt a condescending insult(s), but was a plea to give your responses and submissions
based on biblical exegesis insight, and not simply on emotion(s)

I applaud the trio of us for doing well so far considering. Mutual respect is the foundation for genuine harmony.

One of the most sincere forms of mutual respect, is to appreciate you and your values without disrespect growing. I cant force posters to show me or the God I represent respect, but I can refuse the God, that I represent or me to be disrespected. Where there is no mutual respect, lies trouble lurking. It is mutual respect which makes friendship lasting and so I trust we continue with the mutual respect for each.

budaatum:
One could argue it was the time, ...

I already conceded the former, albeit, unlike you arguing, I am telling that it wasnt time yet for Eve to eat the fruit from the TKGE.

budaatum:
... since God must have known she would and did nothing to prevent her.

So you want to put the blame upon God now, are you? Are you trying to say its God's fault Adam and Eve ate the fruit they were explicitly told not to eat.

Of course, God being omniscient. God who knows the end from the beginning of everything, knew Adam and Eve would eat from the the TKGE. Now budaatum you are being mischievous in saying God did nothing to prevent Eve from stealing and take possession of another's property with first obtaining permission. Here are a few lists of preventative measures God put in place
1. God blessed Adam and Eve with a functional brain, independent mind and vibrant willpower to resist anything with
2. God placed the The Tree of Life in the middle of the garden, just as well as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil i.e TKGE, was
3. God explicitly informed Adam and Eve of the consequence from eating the fruit of the TKGE

budaatum:
Eve believed she would surely die on the day she ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

This certainly happened. On the day Eve ate the fruit of the TKGE she started the journey to surely die

budaatum:
So what you saying? Was she trying to commit suicide when she ate what you claim she believed would kill her, or are you saying she believed the serpent who told her she would not die, her eyes would open and she would become like Gods?

All accounts are correct. Eve gambled foolishly on a risky and potentially ruinous business. The serpent told her a half lie then sold her a death trap. Eve has herself to blame, as nobody forced her to play Russian roulette with her life and Adam's.

budaatum:
As for Nabab and Ahibu and co, Read here what buda said when the "Lord said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance, but Moses alone is to approach the Lord; the others must not come near. And the people may not come up with him”.

Luke 22:42b
' ... yet not My will, but [always] Yours be done.”'

God bless TATIME in multiple folds whenever TATIME currently is now

Just stay in your lane budaatum, dont be jealousy of another man's anointing. God does as God pleases. Have you not heard it read 'I want your will to be done, not mine.”' If you had and understood it, you won't have typed as you're shown to have as seen here next:
'buda, said,
"What the fuq, Lord! Has Moses got two heads?! Is it not you who created buda also? I'm coming up too. And I'm coming near you!"'

Proverbs 1:7 CEV
'Respect and obey the LORD!
This is the beginning of knowledge.
Only a fool rejects wisdom and good advice'

Respect yourself, and God would respect you. Obedience is the beginning of knowledge.

budaatum:
First, we are discussing a book written by humans, and not a book written by God.

Correctly put, we are discussing a book written by humans, under the inspiration of God and not a book written by God but by ghostwriters under God's divine influence. (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16-17)

budaatum:
Second, if you critically go through the Gospels I bet you'd accuse Christ too of perverting what is written in the book. Many did, so I'd claim to stand in the best company ever and accept your compliment. Thanks.

Luke 23:2
'They began to accuse Jesus, asserting,
“We found this Man misleading and perverting our nation and forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar,
and claiming that He Himself is Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed), a King.”'

budaatum, please provide a list of evidence(s) of how Jesus perverted or was perverting what is written in the bible

budaatum:
I would love to, and odd enough, though you don't seem to have realised it yet, that is precisely what you and I and some others began doing in our first engagement. Unfortunately people whom I believe would competently be able to do this with me (I can't do it alone), are stuck in not even being able to accept what they read with their very own eyes, which is that Eve, and Adam, did not surely die on the day that they ate the fruit they'd been told would kill them on the day that they ate it. Instead, their eyes opened, they became self employed and they populated the earth with billions of people (at least they did if you submit to them being the first humans), some of whom today are on the way to Mars and Uranus, as in, not only ruling over the earth but over faraway planets too.

Thank you for the '... some of whom today are on the way to Mars and Uranus, as in, not only ruling over the earth but over faraway planets too' entertainment. I enjoyed the grinning you gave me with it.

budaatum:
Do know that I impatiently await the day when we Nigerians shall critically analyse "'Good', 'Evil' and even as a whole, the 'Tree' itself, symbolises in the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil framework", and not only a "hermeneutics and epistemological breakdown", but a complete deconstruction in every way possible, because, nations that do this go on to achieve greater things than mere believers do.

budaatum, 'hermeneutics and epistemological breakdown', actually means 'a complete deconstruction in every way possible' it equates to the whole shebang. Nations that do this go on to achieve greater things, they are thinkers, more than mere believers do. Case in point is Archimedes, jumping out of the bath, running markedly in the street, shouting excitedly "Eureka! Eureka! or Sir Isaac Newton sitting in his garden when an apple from the apple tree falls on his head. Fact is, straws upon the surface flow, but he/she who would seek for pearls, must dive below. Most people go for the easy option low hanging fruits. If you know, you know what I am talking about

budaatum:
First, however, is an acceptance of that which we see with our eyes, as opposed to that which we have convinced ourselves to believe in our minds, because, our beliefs is what you are asking us to analyse, and Christ did say its as difficult to become as a child who has abandoned their beliefs, as a camel going through the needle's eye.

Matthew 19:23-24
'23Jesus said to His disciples,
“I assure you and most solemnly say to you,
it is difficult for a rich man [who clings to possessions and status as security] to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man
[who places his faith in wealth and status] to enter the kingdom of God.”'

budaatum, I guess your version of bible is one of a kind

budaatum:
This is a scary statement, and you really must consider how and why slaves in America were kept ignorant to see how your opinion above has already been used. Also, study how almanjeris are created. Both show who benefits, and is a strategy used by the Roman Catholic Church until a certain Luther freed us from their tyranny.

If you fear you would use knowledge inappropriately, you might convince yourself to remain without knowledge. Scarier still is if you fear some others might inappropriately use knowledge, you are likely to keep them ignorant! Then there's the case of What is inappropriate use of knowledge? And inappropriate to whom?

Guess what the good news is. The good news is that God has not given us the spirit of fear, timidity or cowardice, but [He has given us a spirit] of power and of love and of sound judgment and personal discipline [abilities that result in a calm, well-balanced mind and self-control] (i.e. 2 Timothy 1:7)

budaatum:
Imagine if Jesus reasoned as you have here. No way would he have asked if you know not you are gods because he couldn't have possibly have expected you to know, and he definitely would never have told you you'd do greater things than he did, which would definitely require knowledge.

Matthew 13:10-13
'10Then the disciples came to Him and asked,
“Why do You speak to the crowds in parables?”
11Jesus replied to them,
“To you it has been granted to know the [b]mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
12For whoever has [spiritual wisdom because he is receptive to God’s word], to him more will be given, and he will be richly and abundantly supplied; but whoever does not have [spiritual wisdom because he has devalued God’s word], even what he has will be taken away from him.
13This is the reason I speak to the crowds in parables: because while [having the power of] seeing they do not see,
and while [having the power of] hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand and grasp [spiritual things].'

I take my cue from Jesus who supports the idea that, one need not tell all the truth, unless to those who have a right to know it all. But let all one tell be truth. Notice from Matthew 13:10-13 above that this is one of the reasons why Jesus spoke in parables and in private divulged explanatory meanings of the parables to the disciples

budaatum:
Bass, the issue with most is they parrot what they've been told to believe and either don't know they do so or just refuse to admit that is what they do, or they'd find it hard to convince themself that people who they read went on to live for some 800 years after, died on the day that they ate that which would supposedly kill them on the day that they ate it.

Genesis 2:17 Literal Standard Version
'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

OR

but from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you do not eat from it,
for in the day of your eating from it—dying you die.”'

'surely die' seen in Genesis 2:17 above, is a translation of two Hebrew words,'mowt tamut' which literally means 'to die you will die' or 'dying you die' as seen above in the other Genesis 2:17 above too, which by manner of speaking, computes to a 'put to death' or 'doomed to die' idea

Yes, while spiritual death was instant, and physical death came to Adam at the age of 930, in the day of eating from the TKGE, they got a death sentence

budaatum:
Christ is the Light of the World. As in that which gives you understanding of the world. If one misunderstands what he taught (and what one reads) one would remain in darkness, which is ignorance.

In this age of information, ignorance is a choice

BassReeves:
Respect yourself, and God would respect you.

Why are you assuming to command what I should or not do and give "friendly advice and brotherly warning" ? Do you understand it is patronising, and that you are talking to buda who would not obey the command to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, much less you?

Let me know when I disrespect you and I would apologise. God knows to get off God's godly ass to advice and warn buda if God so pleases, and God would punish buda and not you for buda's disrespect if God so wishes, and if God wanted it to be any other way with buda, God would have created buda as a mindless sheep and made you buda's shepherd, which I do not think is the case, so mind your business when it comes to my relationship with God please, because you are not the mouthpiece of God for buda who insists on not having intermediaries between me and my God who created buda from mud and breathed God's self into buda!

And yes, this is buda now being very emotional, in case you do not notice. You'd see why below.

BassReeves:
budaatum, 'hermeneutics and epistemological breakdown', actually means 'a complete deconstruction in every way possible'.

To you perhaps, but not to me.

Along with the two ways you mention above, I can deconstruct it mythically, gnostically, literally, mystically, fundamentally, fruitably, empoweringly, and in many other ways, and I'd still accept my limitations and say its not fully broken down. Some after all include deadly and afraidly, and emotionally, and stupidly, and atheistically and slavely and dominately and submisively and such like in their own deconstructions, lol.

Do see the following. Some words mean a lot.

BassReeves:
This certainly happened. On the day Eve ate the fruit of the TKGE she started the journey to surely die.

I guess the Bible writers did not know to write "started the journey to surely die", instead of "on the day that you eat you shall surely die".

I wonder what grade such thinking would give one in O'Level English comprehension.

BassReeves:
Just stay in your lane budaatum, dont be jealousy of another man's anointing.

Here you go again commanding buda! And no, this is not the why.

buda does not stay in lanes nor is buda jealous of another's anointing, which is precisely why buda would go up the mountain to get buda's own anointing, because with my own anointing in my hands I can't possibly be jealous of the anointing of some other, unless you want to claim buda greedily wants to add someone else's anointing to my own.

BassReeves:

budaatum, please provide a list of evidence(s) of how Jesus perverted or was perverting what is written in the bible.

I can not provide any such list because Jesus, like myself, was not "perverting what is written in the bible", and was falsely accused just as I'm claimimg you falsely accuse me.

What's odd is I could claim you are the one perverting what you clearly read written in the Bible when you decide to distort "on the day that you eat" to become, "started the journey to surely die" like some slow death that takes 800 or so years.

I "could", also because of your misunderstanding that made you ask the question above and the one below - both which are based on a perversion and distortion of what I wrote and meant, and is the why!

BassReeves:
So you want to put the blame upon God now, are you? Are you trying to say its God's fault Adam and Eve ate the fruit they were explicitly told not to eat?

Only a distortion of what I wrote would make you accuse me of such a claim, to wit I say, I am not discussing God with you but the content of a book we both have read which is not God!

We'd get to God at some point, no doubt, and It would be interesting to read your view on how God who said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth", expected them to do so while kept ignorant in the Garden of Eden afraid that they would surely die if they dared to learn how to do what God had initially commanded them to do before seemingly changing mind and enslaving them!

You'd find that nations that are doing the above and that send people to Mars and Jupiter and Uranus and that have electricity and create employment for their citizens, eat the fruits of knowledge more than nations that don't. Those nations too used to be anti-eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil until they saw the Light, which we too will someday see once mud is rubbed in our eyes and after we have bathed in the Pool of Siloam.

I read all of what you wrote, note, just that the above is more pressing as far as I am cincerned.

BassReeves:
You're trying hard to playing half smart because I never at any time presented Testimonium Flavianum, you introduced it during your arguments.

FOLYKAZE:


You went and copy gibberish content off the internet like you are discussing with some kids.

Can you cite the passage where Josephus mentioned Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. which is not a forgery?

BassReeves:
I did earlier cite 18:063 as the passage

Why dont you get hold of Antiquities of the Jews, Volume Three, Book 18

1. You went and plagiarized content from earlywriting. And act of stealing.

2. You presented Antiquities 18.3 which is part of the discredited Testimonium.

3. Testimonium Flavianum is wholly forged or partially interpolated. You haven't been able to argue otherwise.

4. You admitted Testimonium has a lot of inconsistencies; something I tagged manipulation, redaction, interpolation, omission amd whole lot. It is a shame you are not honest with yourself.

BassReeves:
Fyi, go recheck my post to see that I clearly stated in my post that I have presented a full list of all the Jesuses in Josephus' work, namely:
1. Antiquities of the Jews
2. The Jewish War
3. The Life of Flavius Josephus

You stole the content from earlywriting. Shut the hell thief.

BassReeves:
If you're really are 'connect with the discussion self' sic you would see that I am pinning you down on the fact and evidence that in the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus recorded the existence of Jesus. Now you won't to dispute that Josephus ever typed that information. From my persona experience, I quote quite a lot of things I dont believe in. Josephus was commissioned to write, hence he wrote about the existence of Jesus, though he doesnt believe Him to be the Christ. Whats so difficult in that to understand?

You may run to the internet, steal and plagiarise stuff you don't really believe just to achieve se dubious purposes. Josephus explicitly told us his sources in the Antiquities, and he emphasize on basic truth only.

But as to these that have no regard to truth, they may write as they please. For in that they take delight. But as to our selves, who have made truth our direct aim, we shall briefly touch upon what only belongs remotely to this undertaking: but shall relate what hath happened to us Jews with great accuracy: and shall not grudge our pains in giving an account both of the calamities we have suffered, and of the crimes we have been guilty of. I will now therefore return to the relation of our own affairs.

1. Antiquities 18.3 and 20.9 is the same thing as Testimonium Flavianum. It is hilarious though that you admitted Testimonium Flavianum is inconsistent but Antiquities is not.

2. In your own words "Josephus acknowledged the existence of Jesus and Him being the Christ." But Origen in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and apologetic treatise against Celsus mentioned that Josephus neither accept nor believe Jesus as Christ. Can you tell us how Josephus who neither believe nor accept Jesus as Christ turns to penning the Testimonium?

3. Antiquities scholars and Christian apologists have ruled out the Testimonium as fraud. Can you please present your facts with contrary position?

4. Explain why Josippon a Hebrew variant of Antiquities lacks the passage in question.

5. The Testimonium in Antiquities 18 interrupted the contextual narration of Josephus who was explaining the foolishness of the Jew. Can you therefore explain the immediate turn at .3 which seems to support Jesus who is a Jew?

Evidences from textual and style analysis from different scholars has reviewed that the manipulation of the Testimonium is the doing of no other person than Eusebius. You may bring a strong rebuttal to establish that Testimonium is an original writing of Josephus. Until then, I have no further interest in discussing this with you. Na Monday morning be this.

HedwigesMaduro:


So, PDP and APC are nothing? Seems you switch off your reasoning faculty (if you had any, that is) before you post. Read what you wrote slowly and your analogy as supplied.

Yes they are nothing. Is PDP or APC a human being ?
Yet you see people ready to die for such creations even though they don't serve their purpose



Your question is if people will agree to be killed for some fiction?(in this context, they hold it as true but what you have in mind is trying to convince them that it's fiction); just like a reverse psychology




The answer is yes.
People are ready to die for fictions. I don't want to go into some sects and their believes when they die