MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

Conveniently left out here is that the "Jesus" being referred to is named as "Jesus bar (son of) Damneus" - Damneus being the high priest. The "who was called Christ" of the text is another of those pesky suspect interpolations, depending on the TF passage entirely for its veracity.

I ask again, why the reliance on - even existence of - forged or similarly questionable sources if there's meant to be genuine contemporary evidence out there?

Bullshit. First off, this has to be the most blatant and obvious false rendering of a context that I've ever seen..

Josephus said...

"Calling forth the members of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and others with him. He accused them of violating the law, and ordered that they should be put to death by stoning."

Then compare that to what Paul said in Galatians 1:19 when he is speaking about his meeting in Jerusalem..

"I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother"

And we know from the Gospels that Jesus had a brother named James...all accounts agree, so there is no doubt that Jesus had a brother named James.

Second, the "Jesus bar (son of) Damneus" guy isn't even mentioned in the same context as Jesus, brother of James!!! In fact, not only isn't he mentioned in the same context as Jesus, brother of James, but he is only mentioned because he is the guy that replaced Ananus as high priest because Ananus was RELIEVED of his high priestly duties for EXECUTING James, brother of Jesus!!!

They are not the same freakin person unless having the same name as another person makes you that person.

So apparently all you did was do a quick google search to find the first secular website that distorted the context of the passage so you can raise a worthless objection on here...which you've failed, miserably...how about reading the freakin context?

Third, this particular passage is NOT an interpolation from later Christian scribes...because Josephus didn't call Jesus "the Christ"...he just states that Jesus was CALLED "The Christ"...he is just stating what the man was called, that's it.

That is why we know that it wasn't forged, because no non-Christian would call Jesus "The Christ" as Josephus "did" in his Testimonium Flavianum.

But an honest non-Christian would have no problems stating that Jesus WAS CALLED "THE CHRIST". It is called BEING HONEST and having INTEGRITY when you report HISTORY.

So please, I ain't the one to run that kind of bs on.