(January 16, 2015 at 1:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I've already asked a few. Troll-time is over. If you want to talk about christology and how yours could possibly be a reliable indicator of True Christianity™then put your big boy pants on and stop wasting both my time and your own. I'll extend to your responses precisely the same amount of respect you've afforded the subject, and an equal amount of effort as you've put into the same.

You're actually going to extend some respect!

(January 14, 2015 at 8:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The moment that you answer any of those question differently than the "christian" to your left or right, I'm going to remind you that said "christian" does not hold to your christology. That they aren't, in your estimation, True Christians™. So if you can imagine any situation in which we might find ourselves in this situation, right off the bat, you can save me trouble, and yourself embarrassment (and it's coming...if you have any shame at all).

You haven't asked me a question yet, so I'll comment on your statement above. Here's my understanding on the nature of Christ. He is God and man - fully God and fully man. Together with the Holy Spirit, he is one with the father. Each person of the Trinity is a distinct being, but they are in essence one God. In his role as a man, he gave up certain privileges of his divinity and became subject to the Father. If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine. I said in an earlier post that this is my opinion. I'm not God and I don't know their hearts. I leave that up to God. In the context of my earlier statements, I was relating my opinions to those who didn't believe that Jesus was one with and equal to the Father. I'll admit that, within the context of the thread, I was being narrow, but I'm open to any questions you want to ask.

(January 16, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Lek Wrote: You haven't asked me a question yet,

I did...a quick slew actually......

(January 14, 2015 at 9:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Do you know your own mind? How can you state that most agree with your christology if you have to research your own christology? How can your christology be the measure of a True Christian™ if you don't even know what it is? How can you know that you are a True Christian™ if you don't know your own christology, by which you judge the True Christianyness™ of others?

It's one thing to decline to answer, for whatever reason, another to claim that nothings been asked. I can already see that you have some sliver of an idea as to what you did, with the comments towards the end of your post...but we'll get there in a moment.

Quote:so I'll comment on your statement above. Here's my understanding on the nature of Christ. He is God and man - fully God and fully man. Together with the Holy Spirit, he is one with the father. Each person of the Trinity is a distinct being, but they are in essence one God. In his role as a man, he gave up certain privileges of his divinity and became subject to the Father.

That's not exactly an exhaustive representation of all of the potential choices just within existing and popular christian sects christologies (laying aside the defunct and the fringe) and you've already excluded, just as a few notable examples; Episcopalians, Unitarians, LDS, Witnesses, Swedenborgians(there's actually one of those here for you to hammer out your christological differences with), and some subsets of both Pentecostals and Quakers. None of these groups are, according to you, True Christians™.

Your comment also puts to the lie the statement you made -in this thread- when you said that faith in christ was all that matters. All of the groups above affirm faith in christ.

Quote: If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine.

With the -possible- exception of the LDS above, none of those folks hold that Jesus was not god, or was a lesser god. If you had even the slightest understanding of nuance you'd realize that this statement doesn't even apply to the LDS.

Quote: I said in an earlier post that this is my opinion. I'm not God and I don't know their hearts. I leave that up to God. In the context of my earlier statements, I was relating my opinions to those who didn't believe that Jesus was one with and equal to the Father. I'll admit that, within the context of the thread, I was being narrow, but I'm open to any questions you want to ask.

There's your shame, I knew you had some. Are there any other groups of christians you'd like to exclude through doublespeak...or have we reached the limit of your knowledge of christology with the statement above? I can supplement for you, if you'd like to see how small your community of christ might be, if you're still enjoying this exploration of christology and True Christianity™.

(January 16, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 14, 2015 at 8:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The moment that you answer any of those question differently than the "christian" to your left or right, I'm going to remind you that said "christian" does not hold to your christology. That they aren't, in your estimation, True Christians™. So if you can imagine any situation in which we might find ourselves in this situation, right off the bat, you can save me trouble, and yourself embarrassment (and it's coming...if you have any shame at all).

You haven't asked me a question yet, so I'll comment on your statement above. Here's my understanding on the nature of Christ. He is God and man - fully God and fully man. Together with the Holy Spirit, he is one with the father. Each person of the Trinity is a distinct being, but they are in essence one God. In his role as a man, he gave up certain privileges of his divinity and became subject to the Father. If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine. I said in an earlier post that this is my opinion. I'm not God and I don't know their hearts. I leave that up to God. In the context of my earlier statements, I was relating my opinions to those who didn't believe that Jesus was one with and equal to the Father. I'll admit that, within the context of the thread, I was being narrow, but I'm open to any questions you want to ask.

"If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine."

Traditionally accepted does not mean, valid, true, or relevant.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

(January 16, 2015 at 4:05 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Lek Wrote: You haven't asked me a question yet, so I'll comment on your statement above. Here's my understanding on the nature of Christ. He is God and man - fully God and fully man. Together with the Holy Spirit, he is one with the father. Each person of the Trinity is a distinct being, but they are in essence one God. In his role as a man, he gave up certain privileges of his divinity and became subject to the Father. If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine. I said in an earlier post that this is my opinion. I'm not God and I don't know their hearts. I leave that up to God. In the context of my earlier statements, I was relating my opinions to those who didn't believe that Jesus was one with and equal to the Father. I'll admit that, within the context of the thread, I was being narrow, but I'm open to any questions you want to ask.

"If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine."

Traditionally accepted does not mean, valid, true, or relevant.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

In reality jesus never existed so he should be removed from the bible. Anything magic also should be removed from the bible. Also adam and eve they never existed.

(January 16, 2015 at 4:11 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 4:05 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote: "If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine."

Traditionally accepted does not mean, valid, true, or relevant.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

In reality jesus never existed so he should be removed from the bible. Anything magic also should be removed from the bible. Also adam and eve they never existed.

If they removed all of the fiction, fantasy, forgery, pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings there wouldn't be anything left...

(January 16, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's not exactly an exhaustive representation of all of the potential choices just within existing and popular christian sects christologies (laying aside the defunct and the fringe) and you've already excluded, just as a few notable examples; Episcopalians, Unitarians, LDS, Witnesses, Swedenborgians(there's actually one of those here for you to hammer out your christological differences with), and some subsets of both Pentecostals and Quakers. None of these groups are, according to you, True Christians™.

Except for the episcopalians, who officially espouse the doctrine of the Trinity as far as I can tell, I definitely feel that these denominations embrace an incorrect understanding of the nature of Christ. But you are right that I should not make my own determination that they are not christians. I was making a judgement that I was not qualified to make. Although I must follow what I receive from revelation from God and the scriptures, I don't know the hearts of others or their relationship with God. That doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves christians are actually christians, but that I'm not qualified to make that judgement. Thanks for bringing that to light Rhythm. Sorry if I offended anybody here. I will add that, even though I disagree, I still care about them as much as those with whom I share common doctrinal beliefs.

---

(January 16, 2015 at 4:05 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote: It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

You tickle me with these type of statements as if they are undeniable truths. There's tons of writings such as the many gospels and the writings of the church fathers. Oh. I'm sorry according to you and your experts, they are all illegitimate. My historians and scholars don't agree with your historians and scholars, such as the teams that have written commentary for various study bibles. Why would the Romans pay attention to a poor travelling preacher from Nazareth? The were many so-called healers and miracle workers in the region at the time of Christ. Will modern historians mention Benny Hinn? He's claiming miraculous healings all the time. Is anybody paying attention to him? As far as testimony about Jesus goes, other than the multitude of writings, what about oral tradition? Since most people didn't read at that time, it seems logical that the apostles would be concerned with getting the word out orally. That's the way Jesus taught.

(January 16, 2015 at 4:19 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 4:11 pm)dyresand Wrote: In reality jesus never existed so he should be removed from the bible. Anything magic also should be removed from the bible. Also adam and eve they never existed.

If they removed all of the fiction, fantasy, forgery, pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings there wouldn't be anything left...

only the 20% that is original

(January 16, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Lek Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's not exactly an exhaustive representation of all of the potential choices just within existing and popular christian sects christologies (laying aside the defunct and the fringe) and you've already excluded, just as a few notable examples; Episcopalians, Unitarians, LDS, Witnesses, Swedenborgians(there's actually one of those here for you to hammer out your christological differences with), and some subsets of both Pentecostals and Quakers. None of these groups are, according to you, True Christians™.

Except for the episcopalians, who officially espouse the doctrine of the Trinity as far as I can tell, I definitely feel that these denominations embrace an incorrect understanding of the nature of Christ. But you are right that I should not make my own determination that they are not christians. I was making a judgement that I was not qualified to make. Although I must follow what I receive from revelation from God and the scriptures, I don't know the hearts of others or their relationship with God. That doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves christians are actually christians, but that I'm not qualified to make that judgement. Thanks for bringing that to light Rhythm. Sorry if I offended anybody here. I will add that, even though I disagree, I still care about them as much as those with whom I share common doctrinal beliefs.

---

(January 16, 2015 at 4:05 pm)goodwithoutgod Wrote: It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

You tickle me with these type of statements as if they are undeniable truths. There's tons of writings such as the many gospels and the writings of the church fathers. Oh. I'm sorry according to you and your experts, they are all illegitimate. My historians and scholars don't agree with your historians and scholars, such as the teams that have written commentary for various study bibles. Why would the Romans pay attention to a poor travelling preacher from Nazareth? The were many so-called healers and miracle workers in the region at the time of Christ. Will modern historians mention Benny Hinn? He's claiming miraculous healings all the time. Is anybody paying attention to him? As far as testimony about Jesus goes, other than the multitude of writings, what about oral tradition? Since most people didn't read at that time, it seems logical that the apostles would be concerned with getting the word out orally. That's the way Jesus taught.

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.


Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
- Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.


Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

getting the picture yet?

lets look deeper..

Christian apologetic fan’s most popular non-Christian writer that mentions Jesus is Flavius Josephus. Although he was born in 37 CE and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable secondhand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100 and his two major tomes were ‘The antiquities of the Jews’ and ‘the wars of the Jews’. Antiquities was written sometime after the year 90 CE. In book 18, chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered:
“now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, and condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
This does appear to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a complete forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are at least seven solid reasons for this:
1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen’s second century version of Josephus, in ‘Origen Contra Celsum’, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear at all until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity was to become Orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius once wrote that it was a permissible “medicine” for historians to create fictions – prompting historian Jacob Burckhardt to call Eusebius “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”

The fact that Josephus – Jesus paragraph shows up at this point in history – at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common and when the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity – makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolator of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus.

2) Josephus would not have called Jesus “the Christ” or “the truth.” Whoever wrote these phrases was a believing Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew, and if he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah (the Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him. Josephus never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

3) The passage is out of context. Book 18 (containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon) starts with Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and talks about various Jewish sexts at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus. He discusses at great depth the local history in great detail. But oddly this single paragraph can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows.… Almost as if it was added after the fact, which of course it was.

4) The phrase “to this day” shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5) In all of Josephus voluminuous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims (if he had actually wrote it) is the answer to this messianic hopes.

6) The paragraph mentions that the “divine prophets” foretold the life Jesus, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, as Christians believe, Josephus would’ve been the one learned enough to document it.

7) The hyperbolic language of the paragraph is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: “… As the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him…” This sounds more like sectarian propaganda – in other words, more like the new testament – than objective reporting. It is very unlike Josephus.

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. If we remove the forged paragraph, as we should, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity. Josephus was a native of Judea and a contemporary of the apostles. He was governor of Galilee for a time, the province in which Jesus allegedly lived and taught. He transversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event that occurred there during the first 70 years of the Christian era. But Christ was of so little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian’s pen.

more?

Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.


Justus of Tiberius
There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.”

how about the precious gospels, surely those are written by eye witnesses right? oh....wait...no actually they were not..

Mark is an interesting fable isn't it? Since Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus. uhoh.

Noticing this problem, a Xtian scribe decided to add verses 9-20.

John 20:30-31 - "but these are written that ye might believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye might have life through his name".......just about says it all right there, let me paraphrase; "we are making up these stories to help people believe...the story."

This sounds like a red flag that what we are reading should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Kinda reminds me of the book life of constantine, ""make them to astonish" in reference to some of the shenanigans his influence on christianity had.

Matthew is riddled with whimsical creative writings as well. I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of 28 names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting up 43 names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph genealogy is even relevant if he was not Jesus' father: remember, according to the story Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been the same person.

Another problem is that Luke's genealogy of Jesus goes through Nathan, which was not the royal line. Nor could Matthew's line the Royal after Jeconiah because the divine prophecy says of Jeconiah that "no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

even if Luke's line is truly through Mary, Luke reports that Mary was a cousin to Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, not the royal line.

I could go on forever, but suffice it to say the Gospels are anything but relevant or factual.

As someone who recently deconverted, DON'T give up on your cousin. The first I encountered athiesm (in a book), I tried ignore the doubts I was having, because I was raised to believe in God, and my brain just went, "Nooooope, God is reaaaaaall, and yours is the right one. Everyone around you says so; it must be true."
But I did more research, which only led to me becoming athiest. So keep pushing her, force her to come with more arguments, and she will run out of arguments. You made some good arguments, but one idea is to have crazy bible passages to show her if she tries to cite the bible.