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

[Cyberman]

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?

I don't do "apparently", dicksplash. One of the many delusions under which you're labouring is that this is all brand new to me. Newsflash: you're not my first.

Let's actually look at what you're saying. You're validating the Jamesian reference in Josephus with what 'Paul' wrote, while validating the 'Paul' reference with what is recorded in Josephus. This despite the uncomfortable (for your argument) detail that the "who was called Christ" reference depends for its entire support on the TF which is a known and admitted forgery, unremarked upon before the fourth century.

Meanwhile, you're throwing Josephus under a bus by watering down 'his' reference to James' brother to "he was reporting what people called him". Nice job breaking it, hero. Who cares what people may or may not have called the guy? What do you think it proves? Because it doesn't, y'know. Lots of people call L Ron Hubbard a prophet, a saviour, and all manner of things, when the sad reality is he was a bargain bucket sci fi hack with enough mental problems to sink a battleship. No amount of "that's what they called him" is ever going to change that.