₦airaland Forum

Kuns:
The only people who are under an evil hynotic spell are the believer (beliar).

English is the devil's laguage, so I have to break it down and shown you why words are derived.

Only a fool can't see this.

English is the devils language yet you use it daily to communicate by the way how does the devil look like and where does he live? Are you completely stupid? what a goon. Keep on be[b]lieing[/b] youself. Deluded freak.

Babynic:
I pray that the Almighty God would forgive you all who do not know what they are saying,

GOD IS AS REAL,

@ poster, me myself i am gobsmacked that there nigerians who do not believe in God, I'm amased at how ANYONE can think there is NO GOD,

May God forgive you all,

Allah is God and there is no other God but him, may Allah forgive you too.

Kuns, how has your child molester God helped you?

Do you want to get killed?

In Mark, and agreed upon by Matthew and Luke, we find Jesus eating the Passover with his disciples, the night before his death:

Mark 14:12-16 - On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread(which is a the second of the seven annual festivals ), when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
Mark 14:18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me-one who is eating with me."

Yet, in John’s gospel, we find the contrary report that: It was just before the Passover Feast( the first of the seven annual festivals ). Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. (John 13:1-2). After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."(John 13:21)

Not the Passover itself and the Feast of Unleavened Bread(which takes place after the passover), but the evening meal just before the Passover Feast. Not only the chronological impossibility, but the theological ramifications of not knowing what really happened before Jesus was crucified is enormous. How can the Bible be considered trustworthy in this regard if it really misses such vital points and gives very contradictory account of events?

uzwu:
@bindex
you talk brash! may God help you

Huxley Jesus is the only way to God while Mohammed is the last prophet of Allah he is also the only way to paradise that is filled with virgins and rivers of wine.

huxley:
The thought of sharing this small planet with people as deluded as the religionists (particularly the Christians) is my idea of hell. Just see the ignorance and stupidity the spout out. pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeghf

Are you sure? they are nothing compared to moslem enthusiast, Moslems are super CRAZY and DELUTIONAL, I just can't understand them, I used to be one anyway but thank goodness I was able to open my eyes.

The family business has to survive with or without the husband.

Huxley

Here is another one, The Bible claims to be a God-breathed revelation of religion. If it cannot stand under the weight of that claim, it can't be trusted at any level. This is particularly true of its claims to the Messianic identity and related works of Christ, as the bible is the exclusive testimony on these issues.

Further, the bible offers corroboratory of this Messianic identity surrounding Christ’s messianic death that are not supported in extra-biblical material, including mass resurrections, astronomical phenomena, and apocalyptic events in the Jewish temple. Such significant happenings not recorded outside of the Bible demands again an absolute trustworthiness of the Scripture’s accounts. In sum, the Scripture claims for itself the unique property of being a god-breathed document and the singular, historic testimony of an event that distinguishes saved and lost and without which, Christians are the most pitiful of all people hence the bible demands again an absolute trustworthiness of the Scripture’s accounts.

Can the Bible stand up to such scrutiny?

On the messianic-significant event of Christ’s baptism, we find the Bible unreliable on the simple questions of what did God say and to whom did God say it? It’s further unable to explain the prophetic work of John Baptizer or the when the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form on Jesus.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God." The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!" (John 1:29-36)

According to The Gospel of John, John Baptizer, in fulfilling his prophetic work as Elijah, testified that he knew Jesus only by the pre-revealed Divine sign of the Spirit coming as a dove upon Jesus.

But, according to Matthew, John tried to deter Jesus from being baptized. Only after he was convinced and did the baptizing did the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus:

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:13-17)

If John came to baptize men in preparing the way for the Messiah and could not recognize the Messiah until he saw the spirit descend and the spirit did not descend until after the baptism, why did John Baptizer say it wasn’t fitting to baptize this one man and that the man should baptize John?
Luke records John Baptizers words about Jesus before he was baptized, ostensibly the sort of preaching to which John Baptizer referred in The Gospel of John 1, above:

John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them. (Luke 3:16-18)

Luke agrees with Matthew that the Spirit did not descend until after Jesus baptism, but contradicts Matthew, asserting it wasn’t “At that moment” when “he went up out of the water,” that the Spirit came, but, rather as Jesus was praying

When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." (Luke 3:21-22).

Mark agrees with Matthew and not Luke; it was as Jesus was emerging from the water:

“As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.” Mark 1:9.
When the Spirit descended on Jesus, Mark says that: “And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." (Mark 1:11)

Matthew says differently: “And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17). Oddly, Matthew seems to add some support to John Baptizer’s testimony in John that God would speak about Jesus, instead of to Jesus, despite undermining John Baptizer’s claims in John that he did not know Jesus before the Spirit descended.

Luke agrees with Mark, that God spoke to Jesus: “And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." (Luke 3:22).

Luke, though, doesn’t agree with the Gospel of John that John Baptizer did not recognize Jesus until the Spirit descended, but that John Baptizer and Jesus were related and, even in the womb, John Baptizer recognized the presence of the Lamb of God:

“Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month… When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:36, 41-44)

If the Scripture can’t give you a harmonious account of things as important as the fulfillment of Scripture, the return of Elijah the prophet in the person of John Baptizer, the first public declaration of Jesus, and God’s divine approbation of him, why would you trust it anywhere?


Here are some questions—not irrelevant or unimportant questions, but questions about the messianic identity of Jesus Christ—that the historic testimony of Scripture simply cannot answer with a degree of certainty: Did John Baptizer know Jesus before or after the Spirit descended on Jesus? Did God speak to or about Jesus when the Spirit descended? For that matter, if John Baptizer’s work was to testify of the Messiah, why did he not do so immediately upon seeing him, as Luke writes of the womb encounter, instead of the next day, as John says?

There were certain passages that,  even as a Christian, I hated to be asked about. I never could figure out what the hell was going on with Jesus killing a fig tree.

Here is the version from Matthew 21:18-22

Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered. 20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked. 21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

And, here is Mark’s contrary account in chapter 11:12-14, 20-26

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it… In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" 22 "Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23 "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

What is the point and purpose of this story, in one or both of its manifestations? why do most Christains pray, believe and still receive nothing? can you guys please explain why Jesus, the creator, God of the universe, didn't know it wasn't the season for figs?

Spirituality Spot Found in Brain
   from:Robin Nixon, special to Livescience
www.livescience.com – Wed Dec 24, 9:19 am ET

What makes us feel spiritual? It could be the quieting of a small area in our brains, a new study suggests.

The area in question - the right parietal lobe - is responsible for defining "Me," said researcher Brick Johnstone of Missouri University. It generates self-criticism, he said, and guides us through physical and social terrains by constantly updating our self-knowledge: my hand, my cocktail, my witty conversation skills, my new love interest ,

People with less active Me-Definers are more likely to lead spiritual lives, reports the study in the current issue of the journal Zygon.

Most previous research on neuro-spirituality has been based on brain scans of actively practicing adherents (i.e. meditating monks, praying nuns) and has resulted in broad and inconclusive findings. (Is the brain area lighting up in response to verse or spiritual experience?)

So Johnstone and colleague Bret Glass turned to the tried-and-true techniques of neuroscience's early days - studying brain-injured patients. The researchers tested brain regions implicated in the previous imaging studies with exams tailored to each area's expertise - similar to studying the prowess of an ear with a hearing test. They then looked for correlations between brain region performance and the subjects' self-reported spirituality.

Among the more spiritual of the 26 subjects, the researchers pinpointed a less functional right parietal lobe, a physical state which may translate psychologically as decreased self-awareness and self-focus.

The finding suggests that one core tenant of spiritual experience is selflessness, said Johnstone, adding that he hopes the study "will help people think about spirituality in more specific ways."

Spiritual outlooks have long been associated with better mental and physical health. These benefits, Johnstone speculated, may stem from being focused less on one's self and more on others - a natural consequence of turning down the volume on the Me-Definer.

In addition to religious practices, other behaviors and experiences are known to hush the Definer of Me. Appreciation of art or nature can quiet it, Johnstone said, pointing out that people talk of "losing themselves" in a particularly beautiful song. Love, and even charity work, can also soften the boundaries of "Me," he said.

The greatest silencing of the Me-Definer likely happens in the deepest states of meditation or prayer, said Johnstone, when practitioners describe feeling seamless with the entire universe.
That is, the highest point of spiritual experience occurs when "Me" completely loses its definition.

"If you look in the Torah, the Old Testament, the New Testament, in the Koran, a lot of Sufi writings, Buddhist writings, and Hindu writings, they all talk about selflessness," said Johnstone.

We may be finding the neurological underpinnings of these writings, he said.

Since this has been known, i believe it refutes any idea of a real religious experience, since it applies to adherents of all religions.

davidylan:
no kiddo . . . after i post i don't remember you and ur ilk so i can't be in a rage . . . there's more to life than you.

Same here.

davidylan:
No kidding . . . u seem to be in a rage? 
One would think i insulted your god.

Are you talking about yourself? please go through your post incase you have'nt.

davidylan:
Read his profile . . . i doubt you wish to know his dad. No lawyer will take up the case. Not even the garrulous Bindex would dare his dad.

His dad is another piece of shit.

@ ZinZino

tpia clearly does not know who your father is, but for starters he is satan the arch enemy of your imaginary god who despite all his power and strength can not figure out a way to get rid of him. He just keeps coming back.

davidylan:
that makes 2 of us . . .  

You son of a shoe.

Sure, you son of a shit.

davidylan:
Bindex . . . what an unclever fellow

davidylan what a clever fellow you are not.

tpia:
you're too confused.

I thought you don't believe anything in the bible yet now you're using the bible to buttress your infantile rants?

I can't be more confused than you are.

if you're fighting an Islamist jihad then just say so instead of bumbling about in this irritating manner.

Who's crying over your calling God a piece of shit? I was trying to point out to you the fact that everything including shit has a purpose. For example, test God by refusing to shit for one week. Yes, anytime you feel the urge to poop, just hold it in and don't let go. Your prayer for God to strike you will be answered faster than you think.

It seems you're waiting for a thunderbolt to strike you down where you are as proof God exists and is annoyed at your temper tantrums.

hmph. You can't even command a cloud yet you want to command God.  Anyway, if you check Jonah, he has a similar story to yours- he asked God to kill him in the same petty manner as you're doing now.

Jonah lived inside a fish for 3 days, you forgot to mention that. opps I rember that I really do not have to tell the biblical god to kill me do I? he has killed millions already in the bible, including trying to kill his best friend moses. Don't worry Allah will visit all of you that mock him on nairaland or laugh when ever he is mocked and that includes you. Am out of here.

Its 2 minutes already and I am still standing where is he? is he shitting? why is the christain dieity not a her? it would have been more interesting.

JJYOU:
did you hear those the gods wants to kill they first make mad?. did you remember the titanic? why do you guys hate seun so much? shameless fools

what a joke you are, when your fellow christains were busy calling Allah the God of over 1.4 billion moslems "a 419ner and a wicked fool" here on nairaland non of you made any comment but added to the insult now that I call your God a piece of shit you cry like babies, Your God should prove that he is God and take my life in the next 30 seconds else he is a stupid piece if shit.

tpia:
hellooo!!!!!!!!!

Ordinary human beings can crash the internet (na today?), so why must your own childish test for God involve crashing Nairaland?

this is why I say you have another motive for wanting nairaland to crash. You get forum wey you wan promote?

Chicken shit or cow shit- if you don't shit you die. So try to make your point without resorting to juvenile tantrums and petty foot stamping as if you can jump over ordinary cloud talkless stare God in the face.

Face? does he have a face? Your imaginary God showed his back sides to moses his best friend but tried to kill him, was it because he was scared moses will tell people how it looked? He was so afraid that people will see his face according to the myth of the tower of bable that he had to scatter them around. If Your imaginary God ever had a face he would'nt be running around hiding it will he?

Hey after about 27 pages your God has'nt locked or crashed nairaland despite all, the people that derided, insulted and mocked him. I say he should show that he is a God of fire and Iron as you are so quick to say he is and do some of the things he did in the bible. I need not tell you what they are, if he does'nt crash niaraland by the next hour then he is a stupid piece of chicken shit.

davidylan:
Most of my arguments are mine . . . i only include referenced portions on rare occassions when it helps convey the point more clearly.

you on the other hand prefer to lift entire arguments while claiming to have "rebutted" my argument.

Case in point . . . your argument on why Jospehus writing is "disputed" to be a fraud. You virtually could not mention ONE reason of your own, you had to go to another website to essentially copy verbatim ALL their own arguments. Have you no brains to think for yourself?

You are truly a loud Joke.

davidylan:
For all Kuns' faults . . . at least he seems to have a good grasp of his history.

The rest of the lame athiest cast have to depend on copy and paste.

When people say you are a perfect description of a hypocrite that you always call others kindly accept. Where did you not copy and paste from? you even copied and pasted form "that" discredited wikipedia when it suited you. what a loud joke you are.

davidylan:
all of a sudden we've moved from "did he even exist" to "did He really do all those miracles"?

Omo i get game to play . . . when you expose their duplicity they start coming up with baseless "whys"?

Nna thank you for accepting your own description.

Learn to read things in context, and stop deceiving yourself. By the way thanks for perfectly describing yourself you did a very good job at it.

davidylan:
You have to keep bleating this as that is the only way to preserve your fragile fraud of an argument. Carry go.

Josephus has a sculpture because he was also a Roman citizen idiot! Have you found a sculpture of Herod yet? Is it because he never existed? Sheesh . . . arguing with dullwitted no-brains is a taxing exercise.

Thanks for perfectly describing yourself well done.

davidylan:
One thing is important to note . . . Josephus, Pliny and co have images or sculptures primarily because they were either Romans or lived in Rome.

By AD 70, Jerusalem had been completely destroyed by the roman army . . . which would make it extremely difficult to located archeological evidence, Which is probably why the Tombs of David, Solomon and Herod have not been found to this day.
However a French archeologists has found an ossuary in a tomb:

https://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j82/davidylan/Ossuary-1--1.jpg
https://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j82/davidylan/O2-1.jpg

The ossuary bears the inscription - “Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua.” (in Aramaic, the dialect of Jesus Christ and His family).

Which is interpreted as - “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Which funny enough is recorded both in the bible and other historical sources.

And this is a proof that Jesus raised the dead, turned water into wine, healed the sick died, arose from death and appeared to about 500 people (whose names were not given and who non amongts ever wrote any thing about him on record but his so called diciples)? how is James, son of david and brother of Jesus prove any of the biblical assersions? Jesus is lord yet anytime he is being put into independent test he fails. Why did he try to kill his best friend moses? was it because he showed him his back sides and was scared he will tell others how it looked?

davidylan:
I addressed it in my last post if you bothered to read it! Note that the SOLE REASON this work is disputed as a forgery is based ENTIRELY on the fact that it contains 2 references to Jesus. A fact that blows out of the water, the fraudulent argument that Christ never existed.

- That the consensus came from 17th century or 29th century "scholars" makes very little difference. they are a good 17 centuries removed from the actual event . . . how on earth is the entire work genuine and YET just one small paragraph a forgery? Based on what evidence? Someone stole Josephus book and added that text while he was asleep?

- you gave NO detailed rebuttal you plagiarist. You simply copied and pasted someone else's work.

- I'm relying on Josephus' work because it is detailed genuine history of the Jews. Period! - Neither was any of the writers of Ceasar or the Pharaohs an "eyewitness" . . . the "eyewitness" excuse cannot be reserved for Jesus Christ alone while we give everyone else a free pass.

What a shame you have to rely on Josephus disputed and discredited work as evidence that your God once worked on earth. Josephus had a Sculpure of him that is available till this day, where is that of your God? . Why is he so good at covering his tracks? He showed himself to moses his so called best friend that he almost killed, but was angry that people building the Mythical tower of bable were going build a tower high enough for them  to see him.   What a God.

davidylan:
We know Jesus Christ existed with archeological and historical proof so shut up and carry your Virishna away. Only foolish people come here and post stuff with know knowledge.

Where are your archeological proof of his existence? Any personal writtings, image or sculpture of his available to show us?Josephus, pliny and others had their, why is there non for someone that healed the sick, walked on water, raised the dead, died, rose and appeared to about 500 people? Historical proofs are widely different and some very contardictory, even the gospel accounts contradict each other.

davidylan:
Thanks Kuns for bringing this out . . . now we can tackle it for the illogical drivel it really is . . .

How can someone regarded as a fraud who produces forgeries be the one whose work gives "important insight into first-century Judaism"?

Even a 5-yr old will laugh at Bindex's low acumen.

Note that the SOLE REASON this work is disputed as a forgery is based ENTIRELY on the fact that it contains 2 references to Jesus. A fact that blows out of the water, the fraudulent argument that Christ never existed.

Note the confusion . . . one reference to Christ is a forgery, the other is genuine?  
Are these people sane at all?

Note those disputing Josephus here are RECENT writers who of course have an axe to grind with the christian movement itself.

It is NOT SURPRISING that this work is NEVER disputed as a forgery.

Go figure.

If you bother to read you will see this  as part of the wikipedia entry

The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery.

The consensus that it was a forgery did not come from me but 17th century scholars, do you read at all? In your haste to scream liar you forgot to read and comprehend.  I gave you evidence why this particular work was said to be a forgery. By the way why are you relying on the disputed or discredited work of Josephus? I gave a detailed rebuttal to your other claims, Josephus was not an eye witness was he?

davidylan:
All he did was copy this from wikipedia - The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Pray . . . were are the REASONS there? I know you must support a fellow athiest but WERE ARE THE REASONS for disputing the authenticity of one work of Flavius without disputing the others?

Here they are(from another source)

Arguments for the interpolation of this passage consist of the following: (1) Problems of textual conformity between manuscripts, (2) peculiar placement in the text, (3) odd use of Josephan language, (4) the use of pro-Christian language, (5) lack of mention specifically in any other earlier Christian source including Justin Martyr and Origen, (6) the earliest attestation we have, that of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories, he places the Testimonium after Josephus’ account of John the Baptist, and finally (7) Eusebius has an alternate version of the text himself in another work.

The problems of conformity of the manuscripts are a huge deal, although generally not touched upon by dissenters of the Josephan controversy over the Testimonium. The first attestation to this passage is found in the forth century, and even then it seems to not have been set in stone, as Steve Mason[1] cites that Jerome (p. 230) had a different version of the transcript in his Lives of Illustrious Men, and in the 10th century yet an additional manuscript is found in Agapius (ibid.). But it doesn’t stop there, as Michael, the Patriarch of Antioch quotes another variant text in the 12th century. So many alterations exist. Mason asks, “Where did such equivocal versions of Josephus’ account come from?” (p. 231) And not least of all, the fact that there are alternative translations which exist from Robert Eisler[2] and John P. Meier[3] spark additional questions. Why are there no copies of Josephus before Eusebius in the fourth century for scholarship to adequately translate? Perhaps Christians didn’t feel the need to preserve it beforehand, and that should raise additional red flags.

The peculiar placement of the text is additionally odd. Looking at the text from a distance, without really comparing the accounts of the context around the Testimonium, it may seem possible that it fits. It does deal with Pilate, that is for sure, and certainly it contains accounts of followers of a cult, referred to as a “tribe,” that Josephus didn’t hold to, much like those of the cult of Isis he discusses a section down. But further examination reveals a troubling reality. After Pilate arrives in Judea, Josephus follows with two incidents; (a) Pilate allows the Roman images into Jerusalem during the night, and (b) Pilate’s use of temple funds to build an aqueduct. Immediately following the Testimonium, (c) Josephus discusses the destruction of the temple of Isis and the crucifixion of Egyptian priests, (d) Jews are expelled from Rome because of Jewish troublemakers, and (e) Pilate destroyed the Samaritan movement and their settlement at Gerizim. Mason states that, “Like a tourist negotiating a bustling, raucous Middle-Eastern market who accidentally walks through the door of a monastery, suffused with light and peace, the reader of Josephus is struck by this sublime portrait.” (p. 227) Events (a), (b) and (e) involve incidents that look unfavorably upon Pilate, but the Testimonium blames the fiasco of the crucifixion not on Pilate—who seems more like a puppet being played—but on the “denunciation by the leading men among us.” Every single event save for the Testimonium in Antiquities 18 is described as some form of outrage or uprising, yet there is no tumultuous event here, no uprising to speak of. Overall, Mason makes the observance that “he is pointing out the follow of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers,” (ibid.) yet in the Testimonium, Josephus speaks highly of Jesus and his followers, a stark contrast to the rest of the context. Finally, Josephus starts the section concerning the Isis temple as “another outrage,” for which George A. Wells[4] and others have argued both events (b) and (c) to have originally been adjacent, leaving the probability for the Testimonium to have been inserted later.[5]

The debate over the language of the Testimonium has been all over the place, to say the least. The hard fact is, however, that the passage reeks of Josephus but in a completely bizarre manner and at the same time seems to resemble normal Christian apologia. Mason cites several words and phrases which seem Josephan until considered in context;[6] that being “doer (ποιετες) of wonderful deeds,”[7] “they did not cease,” “he was perhaps the Christ (Χριστος)” and “tribe (Φψλε) of the Christians.” The use and language of these words does not fit into the normal Josephan style, and even in the case that they were Josephan in style they would not fit into how Josephus used the terms,[8] they are missing further explanation, or would make little sense to his intended audience; the Greeks and Romans who would be fully unaware of the meaning behind “Christ.” In the same manner, the high regard in which he holds Christ, even in the regard that our earliest attestation, Eusebius, has him being referred to specifically as Christ is downright ridiculous. Not only is the language reflective of a Christian apologist in the forth century, but it doesn’t sound like something a first century pious Jew would write, especially in the context that Josephus was writing in (Jewish apologetics).

Silence is golden except when one is trying to prove their God existed, and then one should want to be as loud with information as possible. Yet early Christians seemed to be loud on everything except the Testimonium, which would have been completely revolutionary in terms of evidence in the early Christian centuries, especially against Trypho, Celsus and Prophyry. Yet strangely the reader of the polemics against these pagans seems to be missing the Testimonium, even though they cite from Josephus over and over again. Mason writes that “Origen expressed his wonder that the Jewish historian ‘did not accept that our Jesus is Christ’,” (p. 229) which is accurate. But there is more troubling information to consider here. That nowhere does Origen ever cite or attempt to cite anything remotely close to the Testimonium is damning. Instead one only sees reference to James, in which Origen seems to have recalled that Josephus referred to Jesus as “the one called Christ.”[9] It is odd that this appears only in Origen and not before. For example, this passage is never brought up by Justin Martyr in his dialog with Trypho. What else is odd is that out of the blue you have Ananus killing James. The apologist would have one believe that he killed James because Jesus was his brother, but what purpose would that have served? Instead, looking at the context another probability possibility itself, and seems to be the more probable.

Exactly the reason your own argument holds no water . . . if Josephus was a fraud . . . why are his other works regarded as historical fact?

Why are there no enormous archeological evidence to prove the case of the tons of other men of history whose accounts of existence you take as gospel truth?

Ceasar has far less historical record as Jesus but there are FILMS about Ceasar, his name is used as common place today and it is generally accepted that he existed . . . why is the yardstick different with Jesus Christ?

The rest of the bloviators who only come out of the woodwork when there is a crowd of substanceless argumentators i would simply ignore.

As for Ceaser Arcehologist have found a tomb and a plate with his name written on it, I will look it up and post a link. I repeat Ceaser was not claimed to have raised any body from the dead, he wa Just a king and never claimed to have supernatural powers so whay should people bother to know anything about him? he never claimed to be the creator of the world that came into it as a man did he?I dont think there was nothing about him that was supernatural are there?