Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Aegon]

Honestly I think an accredited historian with a PhD should conduct himself in a more professional manner than picking fights with randoms on the internet. Do you really need to justify yourself so badly?

Edit: Masters. Doesn't change anything though.

[Silver]

So, it seems we are going to get nothing more from Beavis or Butt Head here other than "Hur hur, you're wrong because we say so". I recall now why I never bothered coming back to this wasteland. Someone PM me if anyone here actually starts discussing history. I'll leave the Dimwit Twins here to fall over their own feet as they try to high five each other while kissing Tricky Dicky Carrier's arse.

[The Valkyrie]

Is it truly possible to be a contemporary to a fictional character?

Unless, of course, you’re a fictional character yourself?

[brewer]

Tim: Does god exist or did/does jesus christ the son of god exist?

These are the only two questions that I really care about. It should be an easy yes or no.

[Pat Mustard]

You mean this bollock?

The ancient world had far lower levels of literacy, far less bureaucracy, far fewer documents about anything and, therefore, many millions of ancient people were born, lived and died without a single scrap of papyrus or parchment noting anything about them.

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

And yet he still wants us to believe he's an atheist. "I'm not religious, but christianity, it's the best!", eh Tim lad?

[RoadRunner79]

You mean this bollock?

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

And yet he still wants us to believe he's an atheist. "I'm not religious, but christianity, it's the best!", eh Tim lad?

Apparently ones atheism is in question if one doesn’t support the party line. It’s not eneough to disagree with his statements or present facts and evidence against it.
This has nothing to do with Christianity, so much for atheism just meaning off!

[Jehanne]

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

And yet he still wants us to believe he's an atheist. "I'm not religious, but christianity, it's the best!", eh Tim lad?

Apparently ones atheism is in question if one doesn’t support the party line.  It’s not eneough to disagree with his statements or present facts and evidence against it.
This has nothing to do with Christianity, so much for atheism just meaning off!

What do you mean?  Atheists have been compared to cats, non-herdable.

[brewer]

I notice that on Tim's blog site that only people he references that sing his praises are christians. No atheists, no historians focused on the time of christ.

I also note that he won't debate other "Mythicist's".

[Succubus]

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

And yet he still wants us to believe he's an atheist. "I'm not religious, but christianity, it's the best!", eh Tim lad?

Apparently ones atheism is in question if one doesn’t support the party line.  It’s not eneough to disagree with his statements or present facts and evidence against it.
This has nothing to do with Christianity, so much for atheism just meaning off!

His atheism, whatever that is, is of no import. What's in question are his motives.

Unlike the other, hotly contested reference to Jesus in Josephus – the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” at Ant. XVIII.63-4 – this reference is almost universally regarded as genuine and as referring to the Jesus and James of the Christian traditions.

https://historyforatheists.com/2018/02/j...-the-lord/

[citation needed]

---

You mean this bollock?

I love how Tim O'hÓinseach talks about one of the most studies areas of the period of which we have the most complete record, and most extensive collection of second and third hand sources in the Roman empire as if there was nobody taking notes, and therefore we have to accept the bible is true in all it's assertions.

And yet he still wants us to believe he's an atheist. "I'm not religious, but christianity, it's the best!", eh Tim lad?

Wol, that quote of mine looks daft.

[RoadRunner79]

His motives are of no importance as well. If you wish to question something presented, that’s fine. But trying to attack the person, on things that where not being discussed; just makes you look desparet IMHO