₦airaland Forum

viaro:
Howdy tonyeb,

Good.

On what basis are you making this ridiculous assertion? You are just begging the question because you have not even began to show that there is any supernatural entity out there that is interfering on any part of the universe.

Lol. I don't think it sounds like he was trying to "show" that there is a supernatural entity who was interferring on any part of the Universe. If it seems that way, I won't argue endlessly on that.

I think he did just that.

On the other hand, it would seem that the statement is quite simple - 'in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference', one would expect that 'nature should tend towards chaos and not order'.

Again I ask on what conclusive basis did he come up with this line of thought?

At least, this is what atheist scientists have been singing all along! An example is in the other thread where Dr. Krauss tries to jump to that conclusion in his cosmological talk. How does the atheist explain the idea that nature on its own just popped into existence and resulted in an ordered or orderly universe? Hardly do they show how this is demonstrated; rather, they make the statement, pretend to sound like 'science' leads to that idea; and then take huge leaps to arrive at their conclusions - everyone applauds happily and the meeting is over. What is achieved scientifically when 'scientists' try to gull the public in such a manner?

This is not about what the atheist thinks, I just wanted to know why he made that conclusion. If he made it based on what atheist like Dr. Krauss have said then I will like to believe he does not really know what he is talkking about because I was not at all impressed with Dr Krauss lecture because it was full of suppositions and personal appeal.

A good question. This is one possible way to think about it: do you, tonyeb, know of nature just popping into existence on its own and coming into an ordered and orderly universe? What science has empirically confirmed this accurately? No, I have not jumped to any conclusions about the 'supernatural', as I do not mix them up - my posts can testify to the fact that I do not mix worldviews and science together. But what science gives us a cosmology of the natural world popping into existence on its own to produce the ordered universe?

This question should be directed to beneli, because he came up with that conclusion which indicates that nature without the supernatural will always end up in chaos.

The real problem many people fail to see is that endless arguments spring from people arguing worldviews into science. This is what usually happens, and at the end of the day answers are never forthcoming. Just think carefully about it.

This is very true  

Krayola:
@ Yisraylite

Was Moses hidden in a basket and found by Pharaoh's household?

. You shouldn't expect him to answer that kind of question.

viaro:
Hi VALIDATOR,

While I agree with your first statement above, this one is not quite true:

No, and that was what I was trying to set straight. Religious people are not more guilty if you take a good look at the many atheists who think they know far much more to draw conclusions about the world than anyone else does. It is only when the spotlight is on them that they turn round and make disclaimers that they do not 'know'. I find it quite arrogant for an atheist to assert that the universe had been around forever and would be around forever while claiming that is 'science'; but the same 'science' now leads us to understand that such an assertion is quite dogmatic especially in the face of the fact that thinkers had leaned towards the possibility of the fact that the Universe had a beginning.

Even today where cosmology is discussed in the corridors of science, people who know what they are talking about try as much as possible to do their science without colouring it with any type of worldview - whether theistic or atheistic. It is quite unfortunate, however, that many atheists in these fields can hardly talk science without interpolating their own atheism into their type of 'science'. It is just that these type of behaviour, laughable as it is, has gone on for too long that we're all now used to it and laugh it off for the emptiness they portray.

All what you have said can be applied to theist no?We have theist scientist trying to tell us that science agrees with what ever assumption is written in their various religious text. We have the so called theist scientist telling us how evolution is a lie because their religious assumptions does not agree with it, We also have theist scientist trying to tell us that the universe is young or that scientific finding about the cosmos agree with their YEC views. The atheist that believes in science and the scientific process know very well I don't know is part of science and the scientific process, The theist on the other hand lays claims to the supernatural and claims that this supernatural knows all and everything and then point to his/her religious book claiming it has answers to everything about the universe. When asked for scientific answers or to justify his claims scientifically he/she begins to invoke the supernatural that has never explained and will never explain anything scientifically. Personally (and I know you will disagree with me here) But I believe that the theist are more guilty here.

beneli:
So, I am curious to see the atheists here defend their position that everything has come out of nothing, in spite of the ‘fact’ that in an ideal natural world where there is no supernatural interference, nature should tend towards chaos and not order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

On what basis are you making this ridiculous assertion? You are just begging the question because you have not even began to show that there is any supernatural entity out there that is interfering on any part of the universe. You as a "scientist" should not be making this kind of off hand comments, On what objective and empirical basis did you conclude that nature tend towards chaos and only the super natural tend towards order? How did you come to the conclusion to suggest as you have that there is a super natural entity out there that interferes with the universe and that nature turns only towards chaos?

VALIDATOR:
Well said Viaro.
IMO, both scientists and "religionists " have been arrogant all along in making assertions about what doesn't lie in their domain. But I think the "religionists " are more guilty of the offense.

True.

beneli:
As you wish, my brother!

PS: What is 'subjective reality' anyway?

Ok, Subjective reality means relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

Interesting topic. If I were still a believer I would have

1. Still believed in too much superstition like witches, wizards, satan, demons.
2. Would have been homophobic too.
3 Would have not been responsible for some my own actions and push the responsiblity unto imaginary demons, satan etc and blaming them for making me act in certain ways.
4. Would have been afraid of so many things and believe in so many anecdoctal stories that do not agree with what I know. Would also believe that there are some imaginary enemies out there trying to get me and stop me from prospering or becoming happy.
5. Would have still been giving my money to Pastors and their fellow church workers while believing I am giving it unto God.
6. Would have depended on others who know no better than me to help me in explaining all the things I see because they claim they have some divine guidence and knowledge.
7. Would have been looking down at others that do not share my beliefs with some sense of pity thinking that they are not saved while I am.
8. Would not have been too curious and would have accepted non answers for answers as long as they seem plausible to me or in line with my subjective beliefs. Would have been spending time apologizing for nonsense and irrational theories, doctorines and religious meme.
9. Would have been wasting too much time thinking about not offending some imaginary god and thinking about the after life and what will happen to me when I die. Would also have believed that the world will end during mylife time.

Now that I am an atheist I am now more interested in people, animals, the universe, science and the scientific process, and the origins of religions. I now take responsiblity for my own actions and I am now never afraid of death and other mythical and superstitious beliefs. I do things that I wouldn't be able to do when I was a believer, I walk alone at night, sleep alone in empty houses, walk pass grave yards on my way home without any fear something that I wouldn't be able to do before. Love life and love the people I see around me more, I don't Judge people any more and I am more optimistic about life and the Human race than I ever would have been.

beneli:
Ahn, Ahn, no be fight now!

I don't know who the 'you guys' you keep mentioning are, but if it helps neither the believers nor the unbelievers have 'evidence' for their positions. So no go there my brother!

The 'thirst' that the so called atheists have, is the one that drives them to higher rates of suicide when it is not quenched T I couldn't come up with better evidence but that should quench a bit of your 'thirst'. I hope.

Let's face it my brother. If you are feeling 'attacked', it's not by me. It may be your conscience.

You assume to much my friend, My concience does NOT feel "attacked" and it can never feel "attacked". You came with a false assumption that atheist have some imaginary thirst. That is false. As for your link here is what another person had to say about the ridiculous link.

"Please site the study you are referring to.

Edit: I found the study. It included 371 patients all diagnosed with major depression. Of this 371, only 66 where "not religiously affiliated." It does not even say that these 66 were atheists or agnostics or anything. Hmm, is there a correlation here that could be made about being "religiously affiliated" and having a higher risk of being depressed, ?

For starters, religiously affiliated *doesn't* mean atheist. Sure atheists are in that group, but it would include anyone who's not affiliated with a given church. You'll notice also that the religiously unaffiliated tended to be younger, unmarried, no children, and with less contact with family. ALL those things are correlated with poorer morale and higher suicide rates, irrespective of religion.

So what you're saying is, it's better to be, say, a Muslim than an agnostic or non-churchgoing Christian--and you have an ambiguous survey to back that statement up? All I can say is, color me unimpressed.

You should be ashamed of yourself. All you do is reemphasize to me how easily it is for people like you to lie or fudge the facts. Why is it so easy for you? Or did you not even read the study you are spouting off about?"

There you have it somebody had already answered you ridiculous and false assertion about atheist and suicide. If you want to make this argument, you would have to explain why highly atheist countries like Sweden, Estonia and Finland have such low suicide rates. Which other lie do you have up your sleeve?

beneli:
The story of the bible doesn't 'consist mostly of god trying to correct his own mistakes'.

It does, If we are to go by what the bible says and assume that it is true then we have god creating Adam and Eve and then after he allowed satan to come and decieve them with out them knowing the difference between right and wrong, He then decided to drive them out of his garden. But, if God is omniscient, he knew that they would eat the fruit. He knew that, even before he created them. And, in possession of that knowledge, he created them, in such a way that, not only could they eat it, but they definitely would eat it. He could have created them otherwise. He chose not to. He needn't have put the fruit there. He chose to. Who's the responsible party here? They had offspring who became rebellious and God according regreted why he created men so he decided to kill all humans on earth and begin again with Noah and his family, That again failed so God according to the bible had to come ones in a while to fight or kill people to show them that he is God, That again did not work so God had to come down in human form to correct that again, Now its still not working because Sin and the devil whom God supossedly created and are making God angry.

You made your assertions based on your own interpretation of what is written in the bible

I made my deductions based on what is actually written in the bible.

Correct

I am referring to a 'peace' that comes from the understanding that there is one greater than me who is in ultimate control.

'RealitY' is what we make of it, my good friend. In my reality there is a role for personal meditation. And i do believe that my deeply held beliefs are true. Honest to God, i do.

When i meditate i experience even more illumination that gladens my heart. And in those moments i know that the one who shepherds my soul is indeed Lord!  In those moments, understanding dawns on me that though i am not even near to being 'righteous', i shall not 'want' anymore because the needs of my soul are continuously nourished. No more for me the existential angst that plagued my soul in the days of my rebellion and of my wandering in the parched deserts of searching. That's my reality. What's yours?

All these are your subjective reality. Soul, spirit etc are all subjective assumptions that have no evidence at all in any reality.

beneli:
The thirst here is a metaphor for the desire of the created to reunite with the creator. Even the so called 'atheists', if they will be honest with themselves, have this thirst. It's just that a lot of them like to ignore it and then erect infantile ego defence mechanisms, all in the guise of trying to sound or behave 'intelligent'.

What thirst do atheist have? The way you guys go about with your baseless assertions is really ridiculous. I guess you guys can not really come to terms that there are people do not believe in your deeply held non evidential beliefs, So you try all your possible best to placate yourselves with false and ridiculous assertions, What has intelligence got to do with anything? When you are asked very simple things you come up with baseless assertions that have nothing to do with what is been discussed. What has intelligence got to do with anything again I ask? You guys go around bandying baseless claims and when asked to defend it you begin to attack straw man after straw man.

beneli:
Your beginning point shows that you are not really looking for answers.

It is clear that you have already reached your conclusions, which would hardly shift even if verses from the bible showed you that your position is very wrong. I have been there myself, so can empathise with your position. After i lost my 'religion' it took me close to 10 years to 'retrieve my paths from the land of wandering.' So i will not give you any answers. You already have answers that you are 'comfortable' with. Most men, myself inclusive, may actually be in error about the truth of the living God. But i have learnt that the answers that i found in my days of wandering are much further from the truth than the ones i have come to know since i regained the 'innocence' to believe again.

This is true just by reading the OP, I have stated that I want to know why I am wrong, Do you believe in the bible? I made my assertions based on what is written in the bible, so I will like you to correct me if I am wrong. Belief has nothing to do with innocence.

The answers that bring peace do not come in places like this. They come in the quiet place of meditation.

What peace are you referring to? And what has reality got to do with your personal meditations? To meditate you will first of all have to believe that your deeply held beliefs are true and then try to rationalize your beliefs in the process of "meditating". When you meditate what really happens?

Deep Sight:
Toney - stop fixating on the Abrahamic legends. Every tribe has its legends and we needn't presume Jewish legends to be any truer than Yoruba or Igbo legends.

I am here talking about the Judea-Christian  God because most of the Christians here believe in that god hypothesis and that is the concept of god that I was brought up to believe in since childhood. I was in Nigeria in October after a very long time and the way people that I interacted with believe in these things is way beyond belief. That's why I am asking.  

As to why God would create, you need to first understand what God is.

What is your own god? Oneness of infinity?

I will be doing some extensive posts on this thread on that question.

But let me first give you the summarized answer i gave Tudor on that thread -

In my view, creation is nothing but intrinsic self-expression of the mind of the creator. I believe that the natural outward radiation of the substance of divinity is what emerges as creation.

God being a compound element, comprises an infinite mind that contains all and infinite permutations of existence.

This infinite mind being self-existent continuously pulsates in the reality of its live nature and that emitts steady streams of creation which is nothing but the replica of the infinite permutations of existence contained in the universal mind.

Accordingly i do not subscribe to the belief that man was created for the purpose of worshipping God per se.

I think that man is a natural manifestation of the mind of God, and in living (and living fully), God's thoughts reach expression and reality through man (and through everything else in existence).

I am beginning to believe that you are a pantheist not a deist, If god is the universe in generally as you are trying to assert then why it says is that you are just taking the word "universe" and replacing it with "God" for no reason beyond the desire to pointlessly include a god in there. If you believe the universe is conscious (as you seem to indicate sometimes), that's one thing. But if you don't believe there's some divine, unifying force, what's the point of calling it God?

I just want to start a new topic based on a post I saw on another thread from Tudor. Lets assume that the bible is true. Why did Yahweh create anything at all since the story of the bible consists mostly of god trying to correct his own mistakes, punishing Adam and Eve, the flood, sodom and gomorrha, fighting with men. killing them for disobedience, regretting that he created men, sending Jesus(Himself to die) for the sins of men etc. Christians mostly say that people were created for Yahweh's pleasure but what we see around is very contrary to that claim. according to the theory  humans are said to be created in "His image" hence we can comfortly use our "god-given" morals to judge Yahweh assuming he is our maker as well. Also the bible states Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowlage, the fruit of which is supposedly meant to give us some insight into what God himself considers good and evil, right? I think that would place me in quite a safe standing from which to judge the actions of God, by his own morals.

This really does not make any sense at all. Why did Yahweh make Adam knowing that Adam was going to screw-up then? And then going on blaming us, the supposed Adam's descendants for it. according to the story Yahweh created Adam with the ability to sin, and knowing he created Adam with this ability, he placed a "forbidden garden" in his presence  and allowed his enemy to go inside the garden and tempt eve without her having any knowledge of what is right or what is wrong? Isn't that a bit like giving children gasoline and matches and telling them, "you are forbidden to play with those" and sending your enemy whom they do not know about to tell them other wise? I'm not omniscient, but even I can predict the outcome of that little experiment, so why blame humans if this ridiculous theory is true? He should blame himself, as he could have changed it no?   
Personally this hypothesis just points to some story made up by some desperately unhappy people who need hope for happiness in a fairytale future away from this earth but I just want to hear from the mouth of Christians and I want them to tell me why Yahweh created the universe If we are to go by what we see around and what the bible really says.

Nezan:
You quote only the OT and refuse to quote the NT?

Yahweh says I am the same yesterday today and forever, I change NOT in the bible, so what are you talking about?

Nezan:
You can bookmark me with this addendum: there is forgiveness with YHWH while there is no forgiveness in allah.

This same pitiful drivel again?   

   1. 2 Kings 2:23-24 : 42 children are killed for calling a prophet "baldy", by two she-bears.
   2. 1 Samuel 6:19 : 50 070 (or 70) people are killed for looking in (or "at" the Ark of the Covenant.
   3. 1 Kings 20:30 : God makes a wall fall on and kill 27 000 of an army retreating from some Israelites.
   4. Numbers 16:16-49 : Death to all those who complain (14 950 of them altogether).
   5. 2 Samuel 6:6-11 : God kills someone for accidentally touching the Ark of the Covenant.

I didn't see any thing about forgiveness in any of these verses from the bible only kill, kill and kill. Where is the forgiveness with Yahweh?

Nezan:
Dont worry yourself, I know the identity crisis is getting to you. Yahweh is going to do more than the titanic saga on judgement day. Repent or you will not be spared.

Nice to know that fear of imaginary wrath is what rules your mind and controls your life. We are not afraid of the imaginary constructs and mythologies of primitive men, why can you guys get it into your heads?

Deep Sight:
^^^ Tony - sorry - not every mind can grasp it, i will not force it on you.

Finite minds which are schooled in being bosom-fed typically prefer ready made ancient myths (as you admitted prefering) which like children listening to santa claus they can easily absorb.

The genuine mystic is not so easily satisfied.

You see where the problem lies? You are self projecting yourself as god because your god can not be found any where, What really is your god? Does he have a personality like that of the Jews? Is your god what we call nature? If by god you mean nature and all that encompasses it then I will agree with you, If by god you mean some elusive and invisible super human like that of the Jewish mythology then you are clearly deluded and no different from the Jewish worshipers of Yahweh.

Deep Sight:
Well, from what i read above i verily suspect that the Oneness of Infinity may well be too advanced for him. It also seems to me that NL was at an early stage of development and there were not enough heavyweights around such as the Prizms and Mnwankwos and Pastor AIOs to address the issue soundly.

The fellow's argument is actually simplistic and childlike: he cannot see God, he says, and as such God does not exist.

I wonder if he has ever seen a thought.

Or an emotion.

Intangible things that indisputably exist.

I would have come at him from the angle of causation and the law of motion.

How many times will you be putting forward this lame and ridiculous arguments? You keep talking about this elusive and undefined god but you are yet to give a coherent definition of what it is. If they ask you what your oneness of infinity god is you give meaningless answers like he is all we see and all there is or the prime mover. I respect the Islamic/christian idea of a supreme being than your undefined and totally incoherent assembly of words to describe what doesn't even make sense.

Deep Sight:
Tudor. . . who is this infidel guy? I would have loved to spar with him?

About the oneness of infinity?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5165023#msg5165023 date=1261488573]My my. . . .this thread had me rolling with laughter. . . .[/quote]Who is this infidel guy? He had all of them quite up there, Even the militant davidylan was left looking like a sour baby up there . This was long before some of us even joined NL.What an interesting guy this infidel is.

viaro:
@A_K_O, compliments of the season to you as well (and here's a big one to the house).

One wonders how the nominations were made. On second thoughts, I find the word 'official' in the OP, and that seems benign.

Maybe in future, such nominations procedures should be open to Nairalanders in each Board/Section - and then nominees are set up for general votes for awards.

One thing more: is there a strategic reason why voters may not view progress of the elections or votes cast?

All the same, this is a welcome development. Well done to the House.

My sentiments exactly.

viaro:
What I am talking about is your penchant for drawing unrelated illations and making huge gaps in your own gaping theory of a singularity while forcing your own dogmatism upon the worldviews you don't subscribe to.

This is completely true.

viaro:
I confess to having misread you, and apologise.

No need for that, I should have phrased my words better.

viaro:
Faith is not antithetical to reason.

I agree, but there are so many things that you have to accept based on faith and not on reason, I am not saying that faith and reason are opposites, Please don't get me wrong.

Deep Sight:
Is Krayola attempting to leave Nairaland? I will go on permanent hunger strike o.

Deep Sight:
Viaro - what does it take to believe in Jesus Christ? Does one need to know of him first? i.e: that such a man existed at all?

You think believers care about this proposition of yours? When God "explains" everything there is no real reason to try to find the truth about it. Seriously this is why people are supposed to have faith and not reason.

Natural phenomenon or occurrences that people don't know or have explanations for they call miracle, Natural occurrences or phenomenon that people know and can explain they call science.

What kind of ridiculous sham is this?

aletheia:
But he was reporting eyewitness accounts, in much the same way a reporter in a newspaper reports eyewitness accounts.

And what tells you that they weren't telling lies? There were also eye witnesses when some angel from heaven came and gave the founder of the Mormon church golden plates and told him what to do with them according to the eye witness reports, There were also eye witness as far away as India when the prophet of Islam was said to have divided the moon into two.

At least you are honest enough to indicate that it is your opinion, but why don't you go further and subject that opinion to objective tests. Textual criticism has shown that there is very little actual difference between the various Greek manuscripts, dating as far back as A.D. 130 (John Rylands Manuscript). Don't allow your philosophical presuppositions get in the way. If your claim is that you don't believe that the manuscripts record true events; that's totally different from what the bibliographical test establishes: which is that we can be certain that the text of the NT as we have it today is what was set down by the original writers.

As Mazaje has said there are a lot of textual differences, as indicated by the footnotes of so many English versions of the bible.

I voted for Mazaje, But why are others like Wirinet, Noetic, Kunleoshob, Viaro, Tudor and Krayola absent from the list?

Krayola:
I'm not sure what table of contents lists every person mentioned in the book. Maybe the major characters, but I doubt Jesus was a central figure in any Of Josephus's writings. Besides that volume was about things that were happening during a specific time period, so what he seems to be talking about are Jesus's followers, and doesn't seem to me to be interested in the person of Jesus himself.

Ok what ever the fact remain that the work was tempered with.

This, IMO, is a silly argument and I'm pretty sure if a christian produced something this hollow you guys would be all over it, calling him/her deluded, and ignorant, and what not.

It is NOT a silly argument, Why is there no mention of Jesus in any jewish text from the first century? A person who went around causing havoc in the jewish temple of jerusalem, who was crucified for blasphemy, and upon his death the bodies of the jewish saints that died rose up from the dead and walked the streets of Jerusalem and were seen by many will DEFINATELY get more than one mention in some Jewish sources, Such a character will be mentioned in the mishna at least, There is NO record of such a person any where beside the gospels which were written very long after the person was said to have died and resurected.

First of all Jesus was not the only person that was believed to have been the Messiah in that period. There had been several claimants to the Messiah-ship that had led several revolts against the Romans. That someone was believed to be Messiah, and was crucified for such, was no big deal.

So?

Second, Jesus was a peasant, preaching to peasants. I don't know of any historian in 1st century, where literacy was very rare, that would be going around documenting the activities of an obscure peasant when there are Emperors, governors, rebellions, wars, etc to be documenting. If u really sit down and think about it I hope you will realize how silly that whole argument is. How much of Jesus's audience could afford food, talk less of the ability and means to be writing.

False, Jesus was NOT only preaching to peasants, Read your bible again, It is written that he some times teaches in the temple and he even healed the servent of a Roman Military Leader (Roman centurion) and in their encounter the Roman military leader addressed Jesus as lord. Jesus had very rich follower according to the story, Joseph of arimetia whose tomb Jesus was placed was a weathly guy no? Do you read your bible at? What about Zacheus?The bible says he was rich. The bible says he had a lot of follwer, he feed over 5000 people that came to listen to him, peformed a lot of miracles all over the place, Was taken before the governor to face trial, Such a figure and his works will definately have some extra biblical mention.

BTW that website u linked is not a credible source of info. It is an anti-christian propaganda site. An atheist equivalent of an apologetic website. I checked some of the articles and they are laughable. Elaborate prose does not equate to substance. They just have beef with religion and want to discredit it by any means necessary. Rational revolution my blackass. That is just some atheist dudes hustle using anti-christian crusaders to make a buck.

And what are the things that are written there that are false?

Anyways, I don't want to get caught up in a petty argument over Josephus. Whether or not he wrote anything about Jesus I think we can agree that there was some controversial guy that preached in 1st century Israel, that jump-started all types of drama, out of which the religion we know as Christianity today came. If we can agree on that much I think we can start from there. I'm not interested in whether or not he was Messiah, or Son of God, or resurrected. . .I just want us to try and explore, honestly, sincerely, and critically, what we can know about this guy. If all we are going to do is assume we already know that everything is bulls.hit then this is a waste of everyone's time.

Ok on this we can agree and move from there.

Some people obviously were unimpressed by him and ignored him, some people adored him, some people felt he was just a teacher, some felt he was a miracle worker, some felt he was the messiah. . . different people remembered him in different ways. But what people thought of him does not change the fact that there was a person that lived and caused the controversy. That some people believe TB Joshua can tell us who will win the world cup and can heal HIV does not mean TB Joshua is a mythological character. Some people believe he is full of c.rap, some people adore him, doesn't change the fact that he exists.

I am not saying that Jesus is a mytholigical character, all I said was that nothing can be known about him apart from what is written in the gospel which happens not to be historical, because most of the things written in the gospel are NOT history. I maintain that there is nothing that can be known about the historical Jesus without accepting the story ONLY based on faith and hoping that it is true. You can not even show that the actual Christian movement started out with the person as described in the bible. You can not show that Jesus actually said any of the things that the writes of the bible attributed to him, You can ONLY accept it based on faith. I maintain that there is NOTHING to be known about the historical Jesus outside the gospels.

"In addition to this, each book in Antiquity of the Jews has a detailed Tables of Contents, that mentions the details of the subjects contained in each chapter. The passage on Jesus, despite being quite important in it's content, is not listed in the book summary. Given the content of the Testimonium, it is quite peculiar that there is no mention of Jesus in the Table of Contents. A mention of someone who is the Messiah, or who is believed to have been the Messiah, and who is claimed to have risen from the dead and been a worker of wonder works, etc., would surely warrant a mention one would think, even for a non-Christian audience, however this is not the case. The Table of Contents for book 18 is as follows:

These are the things contained in the eighteenth [volume] of the histories of the Jewish antiquities by Josephus:

How Quirinius was sent by Caesar as an assessor of Syria and Judea and custodian of the estate of Archelaus.
How Coponius, from the order of the knights, was sent as prefect of Judea.
How Judas the Galilean persuaded the multitude not to register their estates, until Joazar the high priest persuaded them rather to submit to the Romans.
Certain sects, even as many of the philosophers among the Jews, and certain laws.
How Herod and Philip the tetrarchs created cities for the honor of Caesar.
How Samaritans threw the bones of dead men into the temple and defiled the people for seven days.
How Salome the sister of Herod died and left her possessions to Julia the wife of Caesar.
How Pontius Pilate wished to bear busts of Caesar secretly into Jerusalem, and the people did not accept this, and rebelled.
What happened to the Jews in Rome at this time under the Samaritans.
An accusation of Pilate by Samaritans in the time of Vitellius, and how Vitellius compelled him to go up to Rome to give account for what he had done.
The war and defeat of Herod the tetrarch against Aretas the king of the Arabs.
How Tiberius Caesar wrote to Vitellius to persuade Artabanus the Parthian to send him hostages, and to make war against Aretas.
The death of Philip, and how his tetrarchy became a prefecture.
The sailing away of Agrippa to Rome, and how he was bound after having been accused by his own freedman; in what manner he was set free by Gaius upon the death of Tiberius and became king of the tetrarchy of Philip.
How Herod went up to Rome and was banished, and how Gaius gifted his tetrarchy to Agrippa.
The strife of the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria and the embassy from each to Gaius.
Accusation of the Jews by Apion and of the fellow ambassadors for not having a statue of Caesar.
How Gaius became irritated and sends Petronius the leader of Syria to make war against the Jews, unless they wish to receive his statue.
The destruction that happened to the Jews in Babylon on account of the brothers Asineus and Anileus."

http://rationalrevolution.net