And now Dirch dives in to make the fail

(July 6, 2018 at 3:33 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: And now Dirch drives in to make the fail

Jair is doing too good a job asking questions and not being a moron.  You know that dripshit can't tolerate that.  He has to demonstrate the bad example at all times.

(July 6, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(July 6, 2018 at 3:33 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: And now Dirch drives in to make the fail

Jair is doing too good a job asking questions and not being a moron.  You know that dripshit can't tolerate that.  He has to demonstrate the bad example at all times.

Oh hell yes Jair is awesome Dirch is just ruining that .

Don't get carried away.  He hasn't told us yet which miracles he accepts and which he rejects.  No one can be a xtian without accepting some of the bullshit at face value.

(July 6, 2018 at 10:07 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 8:21 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: The Bible commands "Jesus" to be referred to as Immanuel.  So Josephus is false since he does not mention an Immanuel.

Ah, no.

Josephus refers to Jesus as the messiah which is a title of Jesus in the bible. Messiah was what the Jews were looking for to physically deliver them from the Romans. Later a false messiah lead the jews to their destruction is what Josephus is leading up to.

Indeed it does. Try it for a while, Immanuel will be pleased. You are a 'they' aren't you ??

Matthew 1 (KJV)
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

(July 4, 2018 at 12:36 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 4, 2018 at 12:33 am)Tizheruk Wrote: No Road both his methods and his probabilities are sound. I know that's inconvenient for your apologist agenda but too bad .

Then so is the above, we can judge him a crank without ever looking at his work. Kind of a catch 22 situation.

You can. It makes you look like an asshole but that can't be anything new to xhristards.

Quote:Then so is the above, we can judge him a crank without ever looking at his work. Kind of a catch 22 situation.

I have read little Timmy's work it's all shit and you already do ignore carriers work that's why you continue to follow morons

(July 6, 2018 at 10:07 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 8:21 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: The Bible commands "Jesus" to be referred to as Immanuel.  So Josephus is false since he does not mention an Immanuel.

Ah, no.

Josephus refers to Jesus as the messiah which is a title of Jesus in the bible. Messiah was what the Jews were looking for to physically deliver them from the Romans. Later a false messiah lead the jews to their destruction is what Josephus is leading up to.

Josephus, who had nothing good to say about the leaders of the Great Revolt, died before the 2d and 3d Jewish revolts.  So unless you are prepared to grant him the gift of prophecy you are full of shit as usual.

(July 6, 2018 at 2:34 pm)Drich Wrote:

(July 6, 2018 at 1:41 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Since the article you link to doesn't appear to either mention what this new discovery is, or link to information about it, I find your link less than useful.  The only thing from 1995 at the link you cited is a reference to an article comparing the Testimonium Flavianum to the Gospel of Luke.  Since the Gospel of Luke wasn't discovered in 1995, I can only assume you/they are referring to something else.

Do you have a link that might actually tell us about this 1995 discovery?  Because otherwise, some anonymous web doodle isn't evidence of anything.

sorry: http://www.josephus.org/testhist.htm this link contains a time line and in 1995 an observation was made..

 http://www.josephus.org/question.htm this contains a load of q&A both citing reason to doubt but more over far more legit reasons to believe.

That doesn't mention any new discovery either. The only reference to 1995 there is regarding the aforementioned article which discusses the Testimonium in relation to the Gospel of Luke, and a quotation of it in the work of a tenth century writer which appears to simply be a quotation of earlier mentions (see here). The latter is easily explained as relying on the Eusebian account by way of the Syriac. Anyway, that version was known in 1909 and so cannot be the new discovery to which you refer.

What new discovery are you talking about?

He found jebus while he had his head up his ass.