Author Topic: Who is the Anti-Christ?  (Read 21771 times)

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #100 on: December 11, 2008, 05:34:34 PM »
Just for the record...

Catholicism is not the original version of Christianity... that would be Gnosticism.

Peter was NOT the first bishop of Rome... he couldn't have been, he is a fictitious person... he never existed. Neither did any of the disciples... they are allegorical metaphors representing the zodiac constellations.

Paul, (Saul of Tarsus) was probably the closest thing to being the first Christian bishop.



James the Just is sometimes noted as the first Christian bishop, but it is important to differentiate that although James collected tithes from early Christians on the authority of his being Jesus' surviving brother, James the Just himself was never a Christian.
He was the leader of the Quumran Essenes, an ascetic Jewish fundamentalist apocalyptic cult... Jesus never existed as a real historical human being, he was an invention of the Jerusalem/Quumran Essenes. The Jesus myth is a Hebrew version of the common Middle Eastern solar-deity dying-resurrecting godman Mystery Religion.

The Quumran Essenes used the Jesus myth as a fundraiser for their war effort against the Romans, they collected tithes on the authority of James supposedly being Jesus brother (they were completely destroyed by the Romans under Titus in 70 AD). This was considered acceptable as they were merely utilizing a non-illuminated literalist (no hidden teachings) Jewish version of the Mystery Religion to swindle Gentiles out of coin.

As happened with Scientology when L Ron Hubbard died, the scam outlived the founder.


So, I suppose you could say that Paul/Saul, although he wasn't really the first pope or bishop... he was at least the David Miscavige to James the Just's L Ron Hubbard.


The Luke

Fictitious is what your posts are.    :)

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #101 on: December 12, 2008, 04:52:47 AM »
Fictitious is what your posts are.    :)

...miracles are fictitious.

...your miraculous Jewish zombie godman is fictitious.



The Luke

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19466
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #102 on: December 12, 2008, 05:13:07 AM »
Just for the record...

Catholicism is not the original version of Christianity... that would be Gnosticism.

Peter was NOT the first bishop of Rome... he couldn't have been, he is a fictitious person... he never existed. Neither did any of the disciples... they are allegorical metaphors representing the zodiac constellations.

Paul, (Saul of Tarsus) was probably the closest thing to being the first Christian bishop.



James the Just is sometimes noted as the first Christian bishop, but it is important to differentiate that although James collected tithes from early Christians on the authority of his being Jesus' surviving brother, James the Just himself was never a Christian.
He was the leader of the Quumran Essenes, an ascetic Jewish fundamentalist apocalyptic cult... Jesus never existed as a real historical human being, he was an invention of the Jerusalem/Quumran Essenes. The Jesus myth is a Hebrew version of the common Middle Eastern solar-deity dying-resurrecting godman Mystery Religion.

The Quumran Essenes used the Jesus myth as a fundraiser for their war effort against the Romans, they collected tithes on the authority of James supposedly being Jesus brother (they were completely destroyed by the Romans under Titus in 70 AD). This was considered acceptable as they were merely utilizing a non-illuminated literalist (no hidden teachings) Jewish version of the Mystery Religion to swindle Gentiles out of coin.

As happened with Scientology when L Ron Hubbard died, the scam outlived the founder.


So, I suppose you could say that Paul/Saul, although he wasn't really the first pope or bishop... he was at least the David Miscavige to James the Just's L Ron Hubbard.


The Luke


I think I've heard this theory before. Pretty interesting.
As empty as paradise

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #103 on: December 12, 2008, 05:45:28 AM »

I think I've heard this theory before. Pretty interesting.

...what we know now is that James the Just (the supposed brother of Jesus) seems to have been a real historical person, and apparently, right up until his death (killed in a Temple riot) he was the leader of the Quumran Essenes.

The library of Essene thinking: hundreds of documents covering everything from Buddhism to Gnosticism, thousands of words... contains NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION OF JESUS.


Why weren't the Essenes Christian, if their leader was Jesus' brother and possibly even an apostle too?

Why would James the Just (supposedly) declare himself the messiah in the Jerusalem Temple?


Because Christianity is a fundraiser religion. Simple. Nothing more. A common dying-resurrecting solar-deity Mystery Religion, just with a Jewish name and the story is based in Jerusalem, and aimed at Hellenized Jews and Gentiles.

No different that Scientology.



The Luke

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #104 on: December 12, 2008, 06:29:23 AM »
Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain; As
Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.


1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus
into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the
high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on
the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the
report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man;
for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high
priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long
time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high
priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you
already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper,
and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23)
who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of
the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus
was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper
opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of
judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was
called Christ
, whose name was James
, and some others, [or, some
of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against
them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but
as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and
such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they
disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa],
desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for
that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some
of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey
from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for
Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24)
Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in
anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to
punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the
high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and
made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus - Book 20, Chapter 9
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=648

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #105 on: December 12, 2008, 06:42:47 AM »
Isn't the Josephus reference widely regarded as a hoax?

I know apologists really like dragging it up... but wasn't the oldest known copy of Josephus found in some monastery in Serbia somewhere just recently? This older "Slavic Josephus" has no reference to Christ at all.

Therefore we can assume that the reference to Christ/Jesus is a later addition.



Sorry to be harsh Loco, but your side has been rewriting and falsifying history for more than two thousand years... it wears on your credibility after a couple of millennia.

Either way, that reference, even if genuine (which it isn't) does not make Jesus a historical person... neither does it explain why the Quumran Essenes of whom James was the leader never made one single reference to Jesus either during his supposed lifetime or in the 40 years after his death (Essenes were crushed in 70 AD).

If my brother was God, I'd think it more important to record that fact than the vagaries of Buddhist mysticism (which the Essenes did record) or the rituals surrounding personal hygiene (which the Essenes made copious references to).

James the Just wasn't even a Christian... he was an Essene (Jewish fundamentalist with Buddhist/Gnostic leanings).


Just some facts... make of them what you will.


The Luke

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #106 on: December 12, 2008, 07:07:17 AM »
Isn't the Josephus reference widely regarded as a hoax?

I know apologists really like dragging it up... but wasn't the oldest known copy of Josephus found in some monastery in Serbia somewhere just recently? This older "Slavic Josephus" has no reference to Christ at all.

Therefore we can assume that the reference to Christ/Jesus is a later addition.



Sorry to be harsh Loco, but your side has been rewriting and falsifying history for more than two thousand years... it wears on your credibility after a couple of millennia.

Either way, that reference, even if genuine (which it isn't) does not make Jesus a historical person... neither does it explain why the Quumran Essenes of whom James was the leader never made one single reference to Jesus either during his supposed lifetime or in the 40 years after his death (Essenes were crushed in 70 AD).

If my brother was God, I'd think it more important to record that fact than the vagaries of Buddhist mysticism (which the Essenes did record) or the rituals surrounding personal hygiene (which the Essenes made copious references to).

James the Just wasn't even a Christian... he was an Essene (Jewish fundamentalist with Buddhist/Gnostic leanings).


Just some facts... make of them what you will.


The Luke


Nope.

Unlike the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, the above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #107 on: December 12, 2008, 07:19:06 AM »
Unlike the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, the above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.

...I think you are a couple of years behind in your research. Google "Slavic Josephus".


Even if the quotation is TRUE... it still doesn't make Jesus any more historical than Ovid's Pyramus or Thisbe.

The real question is why Jesus' brother/disciple wasn't a Christian?

Why did he declare himself the messiah? Why didn't his group even once write a single word about Jesus?



The Luke

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #108 on: December 12, 2008, 07:34:32 AM »
...I think you are a couple of years behind in your research. Google "Slavic Josephus".


Even if the quotation is TRUE... it still doesn't make Jesus any more historical than Ovid's Pyramus or Thisbe.

The real question is why Jesus' brother/disciple wasn't a Christian?

Why did he declare himself the messiah? Why didn't his group even once write a single word about Jesus?



The Luke

Nope.  Actually, my research is more up to date than most atheists', at least the ones who bring up Josephus on this board.

Unlike the controversial Testimonium Flavianum, the above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.

But besides that, the poor, persecuted early Christians had no access to Josephus' texts.  And though the later, powerful, Roman Catholic Church did have access to Josephus' Antiquities, they could not have possibly added the above quotation because the Roman Catholic church denies that James was the brother of Jesus.  They deny that Jesus had any brother and insist that Mary was a virgin all of her life on this earth.  Plus by then, the passage had already been mentioned in several places by the earlier Origen.

As for the controversial Testimonium Flavianum:

Josephus on Jesus - Current state of the debate

Judging from Dr. Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Alice Whealey writes:

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

Dr. Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416


This proves the historisity of Jesus, and it proves your above statement false.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #109 on: December 12, 2008, 07:37:37 AM »
2003 won't do it... I believe the Slavic Josephus was found in 2005 or later.

Do the research.


The Luke

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #110 on: December 12, 2008, 07:51:27 AM »
2003 won't do it... I believe the Slavic Josephus was found in 2005 or later.

Do the research.


The Luke

 ::)

The present position of the Slavic Josephus question, by Robert Eisler (Unknown Binding - 1928)
Out of Print--Limited Availability

Orpheus The Fisher by Robert Eisler (Paperback - Mar 1997)
Product Description
Christianity is permeated with powerful symbolism! This book reveals hundreds of symbols, their origins, and meanings. Essential reading for mystics and Christians who seek a path to the roots of Christianity.
ISBN-10: 1564590291

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.) by Flavius Josephus, H. Leeming, and K. Leeming (Hardcover - April 2003)
ISBN-10: 9004114386
ISBN-13: 978-9004114388

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #111 on: December 12, 2008, 08:00:17 AM »
No... I was referring to the newly discovered copy of Josephus which seemingly predates all other extant copies of Josephus and doesn't mention the word "Jesus".

Your pitiful Google-Fuing only illustrates your low IQ.



The Luke

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #112 on: December 12, 2008, 08:11:49 AM »
No... I was referring to the newly discovered copy of Josephus which seemingly predates all other extant copies of Josephus and doesn't mention the word "Jesus".

Your pitiful Google-Fuing only illustrates your low IQ.



The Luke

...I think you are a couple of years behind in your research. Google "Slavic Josephus".

2003 won't do it... I believe the Slavic Josephus was found in 2005 or later.

Do the research.


The Luke


::)

The present position of the Slavic Josephus question, by Robert Eisler (Unknown Binding - 1928)
Out of Print--Limited Availability

If the "Slavic Josephus" was found in 2005 or later, why is some guy writing about it in 1928?  Now you are saying there is another one.   ::)

I give you legitimate scholars, and you give me either nothing most of the time, or when you do, you give me conspiracy theories.

The Luke, ever get tired of your own self ownage?

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #113 on: December 12, 2008, 08:50:53 AM »
Bible scholars (and authors) Earl Doherty, Frank Zindler and Kenneth Humphreys all challenge the second reference to Jesus in it's entirety.

I'll see if I can dig up a reference to the newly discovered older copy of Josephus.


What I don't understand, is why you are so sure I must be wrong when the Testonmonium Flavianum (first reference to Jesus) is roundly damned as a forgery/interpolation... the Donation of Constantine has likewise been denounced as a provable forgery...?

As it stands now, there is no evidence whatsoever of a historical Jesus.


Yet you Christians cling to the canon decided upon in 329 at Nicea... while simultaneously dismissing source documents such as the Gnostic gospels which clearly have better providence all because you don't like what they say about your fairytale hero.


The Luke



 

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #114 on: December 16, 2008, 10:52:20 AM »
Bible scholars (and authors) Earl Doherty, Frank Zindler and Kenneth Humphreys all challenge the second reference to Jesus in it's entirety.

I'll see if I can dig up a reference to the newly discovered older copy of Josephus.


What I don't understand, is why you are so sure I must be wrong when the Testonmonium Flavianum (first reference to Jesus) is roundly damned as a forgery/interpolation... the Donation of Constantine has likewise been denounced as a provable forgery...?

As it stands now, there is no evidence whatsoever of a historical Jesus.


Yet you Christians cling to the canon decided upon in 329 at Nicea... while simultaneously dismissing source documents such as the Gnostic gospels which clearly have better providence all because you don't like what they say about your fairytale hero.


The Luke

Bump for The Luke to dig up a reference to the newly discovered older copy of Josephus.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #115 on: December 16, 2008, 02:35:05 PM »
Bump for The Luke to dig up a reference to the newly discovered older copy of Josephus.

...I'm sorry I've actually made a mistake here, seems my memory isn't as reliable as I thought it was.

I'm generally just stirring the shit here, so I don't Google-fu or copy-and-paste my opinions like McWay and his cronies.


So I was wrong, the "Slavic Josephus" I referred to is actually more generally known as the Slavonic Josephus or "The Old Josephus". I'm not sure when it was actually discovered (another mistake of mine) but it was actually verified and exhaustively compared to traditional versions of Josephus in 2003... that's where my confusion arose. None of this research was published before 2003.

This older version of Josephus refers to a character known as "Judas of Galilee" instead of Jesus and places the nativity story during 25 BC. Among many other differences.

It is now clear that ALL of Josephus' references to Jesus are obvious forgeries/interpolations... and the case for a historical Jesus now has NO BASIS IN FACT. Jesus is a fictional character... as we should assume of any person who's life conforms to the astrological metaphor of the dying/resurrecting godman.

You can read all about it here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm

Apologies...


The Luke

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #116 on: December 23, 2008, 05:35:24 AM »
...I'm sorry I've actually made a mistake here, seems my memory isn't as reliable as I thought it was.

I'm generally just stirring the shit here, so I don't Google-fu or copy-and-paste my opinions like McWay and his cronies.


So I was wrong, the "Slavic Josephus" I referred to is actually more generally known as the Slavonic Josephus or "The Old Josephus". I'm not sure when it was actually discovered (another mistake of mine) but it was actually verified and exhaustively compared to traditional versions of Josephus in 2003... that's where my confusion arose. None of this research was published before 2003.

This older version of Josephus refers to a character known as "Judas of Galilee" instead of Jesus and places the nativity story during 25 BC. Among many other differences.

It is now clear that ALL of Josephus' references to Jesus are obvious forgeries/interpolations... and the case for a historical Jesus now has NO BASIS IN FACT. Jesus is a fictional character... as we should assume of any person who's life conforms to the astrological metaphor of the dying/resurrecting godman.

You can read all about it here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm

Apologies...


The Luke

No.

The Slavonic Josephus is not older than the Greek and Arabic versions of the Antiquities of the Jews.  And guess what, all three, the Greek, the Arabic and the Slavonic versions mention Jesus Christ, not just once but twice. 

H. Leeming, K. Leeming:  Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.) by Flavius Josephus (Author). Brill Academic Publishers (April 2003) ISBN-10: 9004114386

Dr. Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416


The Luke, I challenge you to produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #117 on: December 23, 2008, 09:08:14 AM »
The Slavonic Josephus is not older than the Greek and Arabic versions of the Antiquities of the Jews.  And guess what, all three, the Greek, the Arabic and the Slavonic versions mention Jesus Christ, not just once but twice. 

...eh, yes, but it's an interpolation. Added in by Christian scribes later on.

Most experts seem to agree that the interpolations probably started when the references to Judas the Galileean were "corrected" to refer to Jesus. This is what the Slavonic Josephus shows.


The Luke

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39384
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #118 on: December 23, 2008, 09:48:06 AM »
Damien Thorn is the antichrist!  Didn't you fools see The Omen????

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #119 on: December 23, 2008, 09:52:33 AM »
...eh, yes, but it's an interpolation. Added in by Christian scribes later on.

Most experts seem to agree that the interpolations probably started when the references to Judas the Galileean were "corrected" to refer to Jesus. This is what the Slavonic Josephus shows.


The Luke

No.

Josephus mentions both, Judas the Galilean and Jesus Christ as two different people.  Likewise, the New Testament mentions both Jesus Christ, and in Acts 5:37 Judas the Galilean.  They are clearly two different people.

Besides, Judas the Galilean did not pay taxes to Rome and encouraged other Jews to do the same.  Jesus Christ paid his taxes and clearly taught us numerous times to pay our taxes(Matthew 17:23-27; Mark 12:15-17).  And Jesus picked a tax collector as one of his 12 apostles.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #120 on: December 23, 2008, 09:55:51 AM »
No.

Josephus mentions both, Judas the Galilean and Jesus Christ as two different people.  Likewise, the New Testament mentions both Jesus Christ, and in Acts 5:37 Judas the Galilean.  They are clearly two different people.

Besides, Judas the Galilean did not pay taxes to Rome and encouraged other Jews to do the same.  Jesus Christ paid his taxes and clearly taught us numerous times to pay our taxes(Matthew 17:23-27; Mark 12:15-17).  And Jesus picked a tax collector as one of his 12 apostles.

...Jesus is a fictional character, he didn't actually DO anything.


The Luke

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #121 on: December 23, 2008, 10:05:57 AM »
...Jesus is a fictional character, he didn't actually DO anything.


The Luke

Yeah sure, and Blaise Pascal was an atheist too, according to you.    ::)

I have just shown you that Jesus Christ is a historical character, in addition to everything the Gospels say that He is.

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #122 on: December 23, 2008, 10:10:33 AM »
I have just shown you that Jesus Christ is a historical character, in addition to everything the Gospels say that He is.

...using Josephus?
Josephus also claims that Octavian/Augustus was a god. So I'll happily accept tampered-with-copies of Josephus as evidence of Jesus' historicity... if YOU accept the Roman Emperor Augustus as a god.

Deal?



The Luke

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19081
  • loco like a fox
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #123 on: December 23, 2008, 10:18:03 AM »
...using Josephus?
Josephus also claims that Octavian/Augustus was a god. So I'll happily accept tampered-with-copies of Josephus as evidence of Jesus' historicity... if YOU accept the Roman Emperor Augustus as a god.

Deal?



The Luke

Ah, you finally accept defeat, by now discarding Josephus.  After arguing that Josephus never mentioned Jesus Christ, now you throw Josephus out the window.

Josephus was a non-Christian, 1st century historian, who mentioned Jesus Christ twice.

And what about my challenge?

I challenge you to produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all...remember?

The Luke

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3017
  • What's that in the bushes?
Re: Who is the Anti-Christ?
« Reply #124 on: December 23, 2008, 10:30:42 AM »
Ah, you finally accept defeat, by now discarding Josephus.  After arguing that Josephus never mentioned Jesus Christ, now you throw Josephus out the window.

Josephus was a non-Christian, 1st century historian, who mentioned Jesus Christ twice.

And what about my challenge?

I challenge you to produce a single version of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews that does not mention Jesus Christ at all...remember?

...yeah, but the mentions of Jesus were added later by Christian scribes copying the books. Experts agree on this.

By that reasoning Jesus was a pro-abortion; atheist; transgender homosexual liberal... because I have a copy of one of the gospels in which I added such an admission by Jesus. It's a nonsensical argument.

Interpolations don't count... the Testimonium Flavianus is dismissed by experts because it definitely wasn't in the original written by Josephus. Likewise the Donation of Constantine is a forgery.


In fact, every single historical reference to Jesus has similarly turned out to be a fake/forgery/interpolation. There is now NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS EVER HAVING EXISTED.

Which should come as no surprise to those who understand that Jesus conforms perfectly to the astrological dying-resurrecting solar-deity godman metaphor... he is a metaphorical story device.


The Luke