RE: JESUS CHRIST: Myth or Historical Person?
May 22, 2012 at 6:12 pm
(This post was last modified: May 22, 2012 at 6:28 pm by Alter2Ego.)
(May 22, 2012 at 5:05 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Perhaps you'd better take another run at that because none of what you wrote addresses anything I said. We're all well acquainted with the text of the TF; the point still remains that the passage blends into Josephus' text as seamlessly as a dogturd in a bowl of fruit. Only when it is excised does the text make sense. Your poisoning the well is irrelevant to that, or indeed any, point.ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
I suggest you make a gallop on your spin that the Flavius Josephus' writings about Jesus Christ are fabricated because in yours and your scholars' opinion, it doesn't match up with the rest of what Josephus wrote. You can begin by galloping to the nearest fax machine and sending an urgent fax to your scholars. Impress on them the urgency of presenting EVIDENCE that the mentioning of Jesus Christ in the Flavius Josephus' writings is fabricated.
How convenient that only in the places where Jesus Christ is mentioned in Flavius Josephus' writings is suspicion being raised. The fact that atheists have gone to such lengths to argue against this—2,000 years after Josephus' and Jesus Christs' deaths—speaks volumes.
People do not go to such lengths to disprove the historicity of a person unless they realize the importance of the person they are attempting to disprove and unless they themselves realize the person must have existed in history. For instance, I don't see anybody trying to disprove the historicity of mythical Greek gods. The reason for that is simple: they know such characters are mere fictions of the imagination. Meanwhile, they go to extremes when it comes to the historicity of Jesus Christ by writing books on the subject and peppering the Internet with blogs in which they present endless speculations on the few words that were said about Jesus by Flavius Josephus, by Cornelius Tacitus, by Pliny the Younger, and by any historian of the 1st and 2nd centuries who dared to mention Jesus Christ in their writings.
Interestingly, all you've done thus far is present circular argument: that the "scholars" said the Josephus writings on Jesus Christ don't match up with the rest of the text. That's their opinion. Do you think you can get away with presenting opinions of atheist scholars to me as an effective rebuttal? You and I have debated often enough on other topics for you to know that won't fly with me.
Other scholars with the same credentials read the same passages, and they opine that the text is authentic. So where does that leave you and your scholars? It comes right down to whose opinion you choose to believe. And you being an atheist, to nobody's surprise, you are prepared to believe anything that attacks the historicity of Jesus Christ—even when there's no evidence to prove it's true.
Present your evidence and we can proceed. Otherwise, you're simply bumping your gums and self-promoting with your personal opinions.
