[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

But we are not discussing the murder of emperor Gaius and the subsequent accession of Claudis, which as he had the records of he went into great detail about. When it comes to your boy Jesus, he does not go into much detail at all, so obversely did not have any official records to work from, just the word of some obscure Jewish cult.

There is even debate as to weather the texts we have today are all by Josephus, with much weight to the argument that some of it was added hundreds of years latter to support Christian propaganda.

In Antiquities 20.9.1 he refers to him as "Jesus the so-called Christ" yet in Antiquities 18.3.3 he says "He was the Christ" this does not look like the work of one author.

Listen. I am tired of this pointless discussion. All I was saying in the first place is that there are references to Jesus as a real person who lived and died from sources other than the Bible and from people who did not consider Him to be anything special and did not follow Him. Josephus or anyone else - does not matter to this discussion. You yourself just quoted a couple references to Jesus from Josephus or someone else (you said it did not sound like the two references were by the same author). The point is, there ARE mentions of Him, that is all I was trying to say. In dialogues with you, it seems, that you get hung up on one small side point, blow of way out of proportion and carry on about it for hours totally missing the real subject of discussion. I find that frustrating and I do not think it is a productive way of interacting with people around you. When I posted the link in my last post, all I was pointing out was that Josephis DID USE government sources, as is mentioned in the article. This was not an article about Jesus but it did snow that Josephus consulted Roman government documents.

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952897

http://www.starcourse.org/sources.html

This second link shows references to Jesus by other extra biblical sources.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21102512009211

But we are not discussing the murder of emperor Gaius and the subsequent accession of Claudis, which as he had the records of he went into great detail about. When it comes to your boy Jesus, he does not go into much detail at all, so obversely did not have any official records to work from, just the word of some obscure Jewish cult.

There is even debate as to weather the texts we have today are all by Josephus, with much weight to the argument that some of it was added hundreds of years latter to support Christian propaganda.

In Antiquities 20.9.1 he refers to him as "Jesus the so-called Christ" yet in Antiquities 18.3.3 he says "He was the Christ" this does not look like the work of one author.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Where I cite Flavius to give examples of his sources you respond nothing more then speculation.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4436442?uid=3739808&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&uid=3739256&sid=21102512009211

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

I am also sure that he used sources other than listed here

Where I cite Flavius to give examples of his sources you respond nothing more then speculation.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Would it?


Was jut plain and simply INCORRECT.

As you noticed, the three sects mentioned by Flavius do not include the early Christians, but only three of their rival sects, so their information (true or untrue) would not be likely to support the Christians' cause, which, in turn, gives validity to my point that whatever sources Flavius used would not be biased in favor of Christ's followers. I am also sure that he used sources other than listed here, such as those provided by the government's archives, in his work.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

The small Jewish cult, as you say, would have been a highly unlikely choice of a source for Flavius,

Would it?

I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups.

. My use of the term "contemporary"

Was jut plain and simply INCORRECT.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Because I have clearly shown you stament to be wrong and you have given up trying to defend the indefensible.


He was just writing down the myths of a, at the time, small Jewish cult.

as far as defending the indefensible, I am not defending anything. I made my point quite clearly. My use of the term "contemporary" may have been disagreeable to you, but I do not see it as offensive in any way or even worth arguing over. The strict definition of the said term as it pertains to this conversation is not relevant.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

The small Jewish cult, as you say, would have been a highly unlikely choice of a source for Flavius, as they were not just small but also were in disrepute at that time. The source for Josephus would be the documents provided by the Roman government.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

I will not find myself arguing petty details with a pasta-obsessed pirate. I am convinced that I expressed myself quite adequately and eloquently, if not perfectly, and made my point clearly. Conversation over. Case closed.

Because I have clearly shown you stament to be wrong and you have given up trying to defend the indefensible.

Read Josephus' writings. He sites CONTEMPORARY sources. He was a historian, not a novelist.

He was just writing down the myths of a, at the time, small Jewish cult.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

The claim being made and refuted was

A credible history book cites sources that are contemporary with the events in question, is they don't the are not called History Books , they are called Fictional novels.

Read Josephus' writings. He sites CONTEMPORARY sources. He was a historian, not a novelist.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

contemporary: existing, occurring, or living at the same time

Care to give a source of a first hand account, one that was actually contemporary?

I will not find myself arguing petty details with a pasta-obsessed pirate. I am convinced that I expressed myself quite adequately and eloquently, if not perfectly, and made my point clearly. Conversation over. Case closed.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

How many history books were written about the Righteous South's Noble Defeat by the philistiney jewy north while it happened? all history books are written after the fact, otherwise they would be present books, you stupid git. This must be a product of your liberal kike education

<<drivel, that shows he knows not who or what I am, removed>>

The claim being made and refuted was

There are accounts by historians who were Jesus' contemporaries and unbiased ones at that. Josephus is a good example of such a historian

A credible history book cites sources that are contemporary with the events in question, is they don't the are not called History Books , they are called Fictional novels.

[Donovan A. Mordecai]

Re: Hello, Friends!

contemporary: existing, occurring, or living at the same time

Care to give a source of a first hand account, one that was actually contemporary?

How many history books were written about the Righteous South's Noble Defeat by the philistiney jewy north while it happened? all history books are written after the fact, otherwise they would be present books, you stupid git. This must be a product of your liberal kike education

go back to the synogogue and wait for damnation with your ridiculous poncho and head rubber

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Josephus Flavius was born AD 37. This was just a few years after Jesus lived.

contemporary: existing, occurring, or living at the same time

Care to give a source of a first hand account, one that was actually contemporary?

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Josephus's date of birth would be?

Josephus Flavius was born AD 37. This was just a few years after Jesus lived. Had Jesus not died (and rose again) at such a young age, they would live simultaneously. If you are having a problem with the word "contemporaries", I used it in a sense that they lived in the same time period, about 2000 years ago. For the purposes of verifying the existence of Jesus, Josephus is quite sufficient, as it would be similar to me or you confirming the existence people who lived within a 100 years of our lifespans.