Isnt God kind of childish/egotistical?

[solja247]

Really? WOW!

Which ones? Considered authentic by whom? I've never heard of any.

I wasn't aware Josephus was accepted as a prime source by any reputable scholars.


However, I stand ready to be corrected. Perhaps you might also like to explain what these authentic quotes infer?

A simple wikipedia search would of helped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Really? WOW!

Which ones? Considered authentic by whom? I've never heard of any.

I wasn't aware Josephus was accepted as a prime source by any reputable scholars.


However, I stand ready to be corrected. Perhaps you might also like to explain what these authentic quotes infer?

A simple wikipedia search would of helped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

It's 'would have',and I'm asking you because I'm unaware of any such quotes. I was aware of the quotes in the Wiki article. They are not widely accepted. One is generally considered a forgery,the other as dubious by many reputable scholars.

It's also worth noting that the Catholics have always denied that Jesus had ANY siblings.The claim that most scholars accept the authenticity of Josephus on these matters is simply untrue.

Seeing as you like Wikipedia :

Saint James the Just (Hebrew: יעקב) (Greek Iάκωβος), (died AD 62), also known as James the Righteous, James of Jerusalem, James Adelphotheos, or James, the Brother of the Lord, was an important figure in Early Christianity. The Catholic Encyclopedia concludes that, based on Hegesippus's account, it is "probable" that James the Just is also James the Less, and in line with "most Catholic interpreters", that he is therefore James, son of Alphaeus as well as James the son of Mary.[1]. He is not, however, identified with James the Great.[1] James the Just was the leader of the Christian movement in Jerusalem in the decades after Jesus' death, but information about his life is scarce and ambiguous. Several early sources described him as the brother of Jesus; historians have variously interpreted this description as perhaps meaning a brother in a spiritual sense, or more literally as meaning that James was a close family relative of Jesus'- perhaps his full brother, half- or stepbrother, a cousin, or some other relation. The oldest surviving Christian liturgy, the Liturgy of St James, called him "the brother of God" (Adelphotheos).[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

[fr0d0]

---

How do you know the baby is innocent? Supposing it grew into a person so bad humanity was wiped out... would that justify killing to humans? God would take more into consideration of course; not just human interest.

---

This idea fails on two accounts

1. Can God really judge someone for doing something they havent done? what sought of legal system would that be if you were going to commit a crime 15 years later and you didnt even know about it? Its not fair.

2. Why didnt God kill Hitler when He was a baby? or Pol Pot? or George Bush? or Ossama Bin Laden? God isnt consistent.

1. Yes, since he knows the future.
2. Because their crimes didn't justify it.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Frodo.

Can't see your posts as I have you on ignore.

You should be flattered; the only person here I find sufficiently irritating to ignore. It's about self defence; if I continued reading your posts, I would eventually say something unkind and get myself banned..

[ABierman1986]

I never said what God, I said a Creator. There is evidence for a Creator of the universe.

The evidence that is found is evidence that points towards a method of creation, a way of explaining how the universe came into being. So far the scientific evidence has progressed rapidly in finding new and supporting evidence for the current theories, none of which ever invoke the 'God' card to fill in a logical gap. If the evidence is pointing towards simple, elegant beginnings that somehow also support the creation being done supernaturally, then one day you'll have to deal with the question of God after science has answered the current gap question of fashion, as it has done numerous times before. God keeps getting squeezed into corners of darkness.

I dont see your point. Lets throw Christianity out the window, for the time being. An existence of a Creator IS more probable than something imaginary, like FSM.
Why would our understand of God be the same of mileniums? Dont you think the concept would change as we got more inteligent and smarter?

The concept of an eternal being who is relevant to our lives and omniscient and omnipresent should not change over millennia if it's to be believed. Existence of a creator like this who is trying to communicate with humans seems highly dubious given the numerous mixed messages. You can argue a creator is more likely, but what kind of an argument is that? When a scientist finds a probable explanation they explore it, test it, and validate it. God falls outside the scope of that, if God were highly probable then existence would be testable, since God is obviously very NOT probable, this lack of testable evidence is not a surprise, though this is the backward way of viewing this. If we had evidence of a creator then this exitence would be probable, since there is no evidence (you keep talking about it but WHAT IS IT? outside of any religious context of course....) then the probability is very low. Like the wave function of an electron in an atom Beijing making it over to me in Denver, the probability exists, but its useless to focus on.

Its a philosphical arguement, not a scientific arguement (although it can be made a scientific arguement) we dont need to know everything about the first cause, how it got there, or its birthday, just that the universe had a cause for its beggining. You would agree with that?

If it's philosophical then stop trying to make it sound scientific and acknowledge these thoughts on God are personal and have a first cause inside yourself and not in the universe. If it's scientific then present something worthwhile; the first cause argument has been discussed for years, it's dismissed by anyone with a level of knowledge in logic.

[Minimalist]

At least get your facts straight. there are two quotes of Jospehus which are considered credible and authentic.

Only by ignorant xtian shits who are desperate for some reference to their godboy that they willingly overlook the obvious forgery. NO XTIAN WRITER prior to Eusebius (and Josephus wrote over 200 years before Eusebius!) ever heard anything about this marvelous godboy passage (the long one.) Origen, writing a century before Eusebius made specific reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews but then specifically said that Josephus "did not know Christ." Why don't you strain your brain a little (it could use the exercise) and see if you can figure out why that might be?


As for the short reference in Book XX it is probably less a case of "forgery" than of xtian wishful thinking. Josephus, speaking of someone named Yaacov (James) refers to him as the brother of

a: the one-called christ, or
b: the so-called christ, or
c: the one known as christ

(Apparently, the Greek word in question works with all 3 translations).

But it appears in a paragraph in which Josephus is discussing the actions of the high priest: Well, here. Read it for yourself.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king[ deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

"the king" in this case being Herod Agrippa II.


Josephus mentions a number of people and the one thing that kings and high priests had in common was that they were all "anointed" (which is the meaning of "christos" in Greek.) As a matter of fact, aside from the two Romans, almost everyone in this discussion was a christos at one time or another. However, ancient Greek was written without capital letters or even spaces between words. Could some xtian scribe have seen the word "Christos" in the text and shit his pants with joy thinking he had found his godboy? You bet your silly ass they could. There is way too much of that sort of behavior in xtian "theology." Note also that in the last line another "jesus" ends up as high priest (christos!) For all we know this is the same jesus as referred to above.

You see, Josephus belonged to a priestly family. To suggest that he would accord the title "christos" to some crucified criminal who had some WOMAN spill oil on his fucking feet is the height of lunacy. Josephus, and every other Jew doubtless, would have regarded such an "anointment" as a mockery of their traditions.

But xtians are easy to fool. You are living proof of that.

[Minimalist]

Just a follow up - facts seem to frighten xtians - to the above:

Origen Book I Chapter XLVII of Contra Celsus

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

Origen's work was published c 250 AD - some 75 years after Celsus died and about 75 years before Eusebius' Ecclesiastic History was finished c 323/4.

Here's what Eusebius has to say about the same Book XVIII of Antiquities:

7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words: “And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

Now, either Origen was the stupidest bastard who ever lived or Eusebius made up this fantastical account. As no other xtian writer before Eusebius makes the slighest reference to the TF one has to consider the weight of evidence as being on the side of Origen.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Now now Min,stop being so mean,using reason and erudition. What are you trying to do,confuse our apologists?

[Minimalist]

I just want them to know that I've read this shit and they haven't.

Pretending that answersingenesis provides relevant answers to anything is simply silly beyond words.