Ok just 2 weeks left before school starts again. Hope I can get the rest of Crackpipes 9 responses done by then.
Then I have to do the talley of all Crackpipe’s lies and get the new “Evidence for Jesus is Meaningless 2 article done after that.
So let’s hopefully get this one on Josephus done soon. Looks pretty easy. Same old apologist stuff, so like I said “let’s hope”.
So Crackpipe says….
“BB(s)J vs. Jesus Part Nine: Josephus!
Okay, so we are making it ever closer to the end of BB(s)J’s list. This post: Josephus!
Here’s what BB(s)J give us:
“9) TITUS FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 37-101 AD was said to have written about Jewish history in 93-94 AD in Antiquities of the Jews” and makes references to Jesus in a section of it now called “The Testimonium Flavium”.
Pretty solid it seems with everything I show above about WHY and HOW Josephus and his “evidence” of Jesus is meaningless.
However, Crackpipe christian will not be deterred.
“Okay so let’s get to BB(s)J’s arguments:
“a) Jospephus didn’t believe in Jesus, or christianity and was simply referencing the religion and Hebrew scriptures.”
“- Josephus was an orthodox Jew.”
BB(s)J is assuming Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus – that’s what the discussion is about.
If Josephus DID write about Jesus, then he believed Jesus existed. Which is why we are discussing the passage.
As evidence?! No.
– Did Josephus know Jesus? No.
– Could Josephus provide anything that even remotely passes as evidence? No.
– Was everything Josephus saying, that wasn’t overly said to be a forgery, just simple hearsay? Yes.
– Of course the entry is a confirmed forgery by multiple scholars, so it really is a waste of time because this automatically makes these Josephus pieces completely non-credible and non-reliable as evidence of Jesus.
“For sure, in either case Josephus didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.
“b) This wasn’t written til 94 BC which was 61 years after Jesus supposedly died.”
The classics never DIE!
Like Tacitus, Josephus was a historian sure a biased one and a sloppy writer (as we will see) but a historian nonetheless.
Of course though, we know that BB(s)J believes it impossible for any facts in history to get passed along…(especially when Jesus is involved!).”
So let’s see what else Josephus had in common with Tacitus:
– No proof that Josephus was reading references that would have anything with information on Jesus the man.
– Josephus isn’t saying anything that isn’t complete hearsay and common knowledge.
– Not credible because his Jesus entries were said to be forgeries.
– There still is no evidence Jesus existed.
– Also the fact regarding how dishonest, lying manipulative and misleading the church has been throughout history doesn’t help matters either.
“c) Also that scholars have confirmed the Josephus Jesus references to have been forgeries that were inserted over 250 years later.
– Assumed to be Eusebius who did the forgeries.
Scholars confirm CERTAIN parts of TF were inserted, not the ACTUAL references to Jesus. Plus there was another reference. Yep two seperate references.
Okay so there is a (weak) theory that Eusebius wrote the whole dang thing and/or at least inserted some stuff about Jesus that Jo wouldn’t have written.
A few scholars, yes, hold the view that the whole passage was written by E. A few. Not many, but a few, yes.
All of it forged, or some of it forged. Forged is forged.
– Richard Carrier will tell you it’s forged also:
– Hector Avalos thinks it’s forged too.
Goto the 34 minute mark:
> Hector Avalos is professor of religious studies at Iowa State University and the author or editor of six books on Biblical studies and religion.
– Countless scholars will tell you it’s forged.
– Even if it wasn’t forged, it still is just about hearsay and nothing else.
“E does appear to be suspect #1 for the insertion, but in reality it’s just a guess.
The “E DID it” theory is based on 4 basic issues, with some variance.
1) E was a known forger.
2) silence from early Church fathers about what Jo wrote on Jesus.
3) the passage doesn’t seem to fit with those around it
4) wording supposedly not used by Jo
(There are a few more, but my links address them as well)
Yep. Eusebius like all of christianity did a lot of lying and forging.
> It’s no secret.
– The church fathers sure never mentioned anything Josephus said about Jesus, even though they were quite familiar with his work.
– Multiple scholars will agree that the passages don’t fit.
> It doesn’t matter how many times Crackpipe argues about this, scholars will still tell you that the passages don’t fit.
– Also no matter how many times Crackpipe implies the wording isn’t an issue, it still is an issue and scholars say so.
“These four represent what BB(s)J has provided within the links.
Now to offer up point one: E is a liar liar pants on fire!
If you click on the first non-Wikipedia link you’ll find the author lays out a case the E was a shitty historian and liar of sorts. To support this he uses a quote from…
Can you guess?
Yep, my buddy Bart!
“The Bible scholar, Professor Bart Ehrman, reports on Eusebius’ dishonest character in the following words:
“Eusebius stands at the end of this process. It was his rewriting of history that made all later historians think that his group (Orthodox Christianity) had always been the majority opinion. But it did not really happen that way.”(7)
Now I will give the writer the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was just using my buddy there to ONLY establish E’s character as a historian, and not imply that Bart believes E forged Josephus.”
Funny then that Eusebius had access to ALL information then and at that time who provided Eusebius access and the ability and resources to do all the changes?
– Well Crackpipe’s buddy Constantine of course.
– Is Crackpipe seriously this mental and desperate?
> How is a forged reference found over a 1000 years later that was in the possession of a known forger and liar, credible again?
– Yep, there really is no way that anything from Josephus can be considered credible, or reliable as evidence and Crackpipe really is in desperation mode now.
“Because as we know:” And he (Jesus) is almost certainly referred to twice in the Jewish historian Josephus, once in an entire paragraph.” – “My buddy” Bart Ehrman.
Bart likes Jo!”
LOL Yeah wonderful.
– Bart says “And he is almost certainly referred to twice in the Jewish historian Josephus”
– This simply says that Josephus’ writings mentioned him.
– He was of course talking about common knowledge that christians blabbed and blabbed about to everyone.
– He mentioned a myth and a delusion.
– Bart merely mentions that Jesus’ was mentioned in Josephus’ work AS A FORGERY.
– I also enjoy in the article how Bart basically says he doesn’t give Suetonius credibility.
> Funny that Crackpipe gives it potential and argued in Suetonius’ defense, but then later on changed it to “maybe” so I guess because he heard Bart Ehrman did.
“But what’s really funny about the blog post is the quotes from people that say Josephus is a forgery.
Here they are: ”
“Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: “If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too” (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).” (8)
The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:
“Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery..(Christian Records, p. 30).” (9)
The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says:
“This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl . A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl . A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl . A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl . A.D. 193), and Origen (fl . A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).” (10)
Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ. He says:
“The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity, though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance” (Kneeland’s Review, p. 169). (11)
The following, from Dr. Farrar’s pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
“That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.” (12)
Seems pretty damning!
Buuuuuuut: run to the bottom of the page and read WHERE the quotes come from:”John E Remsburg. The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence. The Truth Seeker Company. (1909) pp. 32-35.
Yeah, they all come from 4 pages in ONE book written in 1909!
Gotta love it!
BWAHAHAHA! Oh that’s so funny!
– Of course I’m not laughing at the same thing Crackpipe is laughing at but laughing AT Crackpipe specifically.
– Can you believe this hypocrisy?
> Crackpipe is giving me crap for saying something has no validity because it was written a 100 years ago? WTF?
> Meanwhile this is within a MODERN century with VERIFIED mass media!
> This is documented proof that these scholarly people said this.
> Who the fudge is Crackpipe to say who and what these men are saying isn’t accurate or credible when Crackpipe is attacking me for saying things aren’t credible 60-200 years after Jesus’ supposed death? WTF?!
– Gotta love religious people and their double standards. Pathetic.
– Regardless how much Crackpipe tries to give us the impression that all these people WHO SHOULD HAVE AND WOULD have used the Josephus Jesus references are irrelevant, they are quite RELEVANT.
– It’s quite the evidence that the Jesus entries were forged by someone.
“Okay, maybe the other link is better.
Well for one it says this: “So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century.”
So this is evidence of Jesus how again from what Josephus says?
– I guess that the guy who made the quote about the 19th century obviously underestimated the delusion, desperation, patheticness and stupidity of people like Crackpipe.
– That is a problem that Atheists have when dealing with religious people and that is that we are expecting completely irrational, brainwashed lunatics to act and think rational.
> This is like expecting faith healing families to not kill their kids because they’re idiots.
> This is like expecting a creationist congregation to do research into the Big Bang, evolution and stellar nucleosynthesis and not put up a stink.
> This is like telling a brainwashed religious lunatic that there isn’t any truth or evidence of their religion and expecting them to rationally understand…. oh wait, that’s exactly what it is.
– Either way, All this is is Crackpipe doing nothing but a pathetic attempt at misleading us into thinking that all this evidence AGAINST the evidence isn’t evidence.
> Crackpipe is implying that he somehow made a point when he clearly hasn’t.
“Now if you do a search on your own you will find that pretty much EVERYONE agrees that part of a paragraph from Josephus has some Christian inserts. E may have done it, maybe not, but there it is regardless.
This isn’t new information.
So why is Crackpipe wasting our time?
As BE says: “The Testimonium that we have in the late manuscripts of Josephus has clearly and obviously been “doctored up” by a Christian scribe, since Josephus himself (as we know, e.g., from his autobiography) never became a Christian and so did not himself believe that Jesus was the messiah who was raised from the dead in fulfillment of the Scriptures (as the Testimonium relates).
But Josephus did refer to Jesus, and he does give us some valuable information about him. And he is the first non-Christian source to do so.”
So we have someone parroting some lunatic’s delusions.
– Still not evidence of anything.
– Did I mention that these passages of Josephus were forged?
“Now you can look and find this doctored up part. It’s in the first non-Wikipedia link.
But guess what happens when you remove the contended parts?
Yeah, it still references Jesus. Scholars know this, which is WHY they still accept it as an authentic reference to Jesus and STILL cite it today.”
– What Crackpipe doesn’t seem to grasp is that there is a big difference between REFERENCING Jesus and EVIDENCE of Jesus.
– When Tacitus REFERENCED Heracles was he showing EVIDENCE Heracles existed, or referencing?
– Josephus can reference Jesus all he wants, but it still isn’t evidence, or proof of anything.
– Oh and those references of Jesus were said to be forgeries by the way.
“So the claim that NO real scholar says this is evidence for Jesus is…well, dare I say a lie? Either that or complete ignorance of historical scholarship.”
How is this evidence again? Because Josephus parrotted a faith based delusion?
– How is this evidence again because some forgery was inserted that referenced someone whose existence is based on hearsay?
“Anyway, this post also says this:”Hence, by the 1840’s, when the anonymous author of Christian Mythology Unveiled wrote, the Testimonium Flavanium was already “universally acknowledged to be a forgery.”
I guess historical critisism hasn’t improved at all since then…in fact it’s gotten worse! Before 1900 it was universally thought to be a forgery, we read the quotes!
Now the opposite is true!
I blame the parents…
Okay so let’s deal with if E wrote Josephus’ TF: Not So Much!”
As Richard Carrier says.
> Eusebius did the interpolation.
– Also, I just wanted to say how Crackpipe is not funny and above just sounds desperate and stupid and also very loserish.
“Scroll down to number 10 and read: “10. Eusebius as the Interpolator
The argument that Eusebius himself interpolated the entire TF has been most recently advocated by Ken Olson. I have already addressed his arguments in my Response to Ken Olson on the Testamonium Flavianum. From the conclusion:
An examination of three types of evidence reveals that Olson’s theory is unpersuasive. First, the internal evidence reveals distinctly, and sometimes uniquely, Josephan language in parts of the TF. Olson’s attempt to point to uniquely Eusebian language is unavailing. Two of the phrases are arguably Josephan. Second, Olson completely ignores the probable existence of Antiquities manuscripts independent of Eusebius which also contain the TF. The existence of such manuscripts is fatal to this theory. Third, Olson’s more important argument about Eusebius’ apologetic purpose is entirely unconvincing. Simply put, Eusebius never uses the TF as Olson’s theory predicts. In sum, Olson has failed to offer any serious reason to believe that Eusebius interpolated the TF.”
You can read the full reply: http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_josephus.html ”
WOW! If that wasn’t the most pointless and boring article I’ve ever read in my entire life!
– There wasn’t one single convincing argument in that article and was nothing but the ramblings of a lunatic!
> All Crackpipe’s articles he links to me are the most boring I’ve ever read and no matter how many times I read them they just say nothing and have no point.
– I’m starting to wonder if Crackpipe is actually a group of really stupid brainwashed christians with no lives instead of just one moron.
As Price notes: “If Eusebius invented this overt attestation of Josephus’ belief in Jesus as the Christ, why does he take no advantage of it at all? Nowhere does Eusebius claim that Josephus, a prominent Jew, believed Jesus was the Messiah. Again, therefore, Eusebius misses an opportunity to make any use whatsoever of his literary creation. But the problem remains if the original passage – as discussed above – stated that Jesus was the “so-called Christ.” Olson offers no explanation for why Eusebius would invent the Testimonium only to call into question his overriding apologetic purpose.”
Who knows what Eusebius’ motive was?
– The way Eusebius IMPLIED and worded it was so OBVIOUSLY christian and inserted that it’s just as believable as someone claiming that I wrote the same thing on my blog because I believed Jesus was a real person.
– Who knows what goes through the mind of a madman like Eusebius?
– Who knows what goes through the mind of someone who works for a madman? (Constantine).
– All religious people are insane in a sense because their brainwashing makes them that way.
– I still can’t figure out what possibly goes through Crackpipe’s head (or heads).
> Nothing sane.
“And: “Simply put, Eusebius never uses the Testimonium for the apologetics purposes that Olson ascribes to him and the Testimonium itself fails to include basic material about Jesus that would have advanced Eusebius’ apologetic purposes.”
In short: if E wrote it, how come he didn’t use it?”
Has anyone ever heard the term “whoever smelled it dealt it”?
– If someone forges things and they don’t want it to look like it was them, then maybe they might want to just keep quiet about it.
– Maybe Eusebius forged so many things that he couldn’t keep track of them all.
– Again, what goes through the mind of crazy lying dishonest people?
“Okay, but what about the church fathers not mentioning Josephus?
Okay, so let’s as the obvious question: why would they?
For what purpose would citing Josephus is this case be useful to them?
Even WITH the Christian addition, Josephus’ writing is of little value to the early Church fathers. It adds nothing of value to what they already believed about Jesus. Since it was clear and known that Josephus didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.”
Oh come off of it! You’ve got to be kidding and Crackpipe can’t be this stupid!
– Any reference at all of Jesus would have been used!
> Christians then were just as delusional and desperate as they are now.
> If people like Crackpipe desperately TRY to use it NOW, even after world renowned experts say it’s a forgery, then you can bet that THEY would have 1800 years ago.
– This is so incredibly the stupidest question ever.
> WHY would they use it? Seriously?
> Why wouldn’t the christian writers and church leaders try to use it to prove Jesus? Why the fark do you think?
> Why is Crackpipe trying to use it?
– This is the same as me asking the question “why would an Atheist debate crazy religious people on the Atheist’s own blog”.
> I’m stunned.
– OF COURSE THEY WOULD USE IT! WTF?!
– Christians use anything and everything to fuel their lies and delusion, or has Crackpipe forgotten all of the Apocrypha and the many forgeries inserted into the bible?
– If Crackpipe tries to tell us that christianity isn’t about lying, manipulating and deception, or doing whatever it takes to fuel peoples delusion, then maybe Crackpipe never heard of blasphemy laws.
“It’s been claimed that the Christians used Josephus heavily, and thus would have.
Here’s a cool link about the issue, with an exhaustive look at the use of Josephus by Christians
Yes that sure was exhaustive all right and took me an entire day to read with several naps inbetween.
– It was also misleading and a complete waste of time. Kinda like dealing with Crackpipe
> I’ve been working on responses to Crackpipe for over a month and this is only what Crackpipe wrote in just a few days.
> Crackpipe is a timewasting vampire.
> Crackpipe truly has no life.
“Okay, let’s move on from the forgery for a sec, we will come back to it I promise!”
Whatever Crackpipe wants to do is fine with me.
> Crackpipe is still just a brainwashed slave of a lie with zero evidence and all he can do is attempt to make people temporarily second guess themselves.
> I feel like I’m Neo from the Matrix when I’m debating Crackpipe.
“BB(s)J throws this out:
“d) There have been many copies of Josephus’s work discovered WITHOUT the Jesus references also throughout the centuries.”
This is a new line of argument that I haven’t heard prior. But looking into it I found it is a faulty argument.
“It is sometimes claimed that manuscripts before Eusebius do not have the passage in question. This is simply not true; there are no extant manuscripts before Eusebius. It is also sometimes pointed out that the Josippon, a medieval Hebrew version of Josephus, lacks the passage in question. However, Josippon is dependent on the text of the Antiquities preserved by Christians, so it is clear that the author of Josippon does not represent an independent manuscript tradition but rather purposely omits the passage.”
BB(s)J may need to clarify exactly what he is saying here…and perhaps provide a link or two.
What’s to understand? Why is this so difficult?
– The 2 forged Jesus references put there by Eusebius, or some other christian source are the ONLY references to Jesus AT ALL.
– Josephus had countless writings and none had Jesus in them when they totally should have.
– Why didn’t Josephus’ father tell Josephus stories about Jesus?
– Checkout number 9 here:
> It explains it best about the lack of Jesus being brought up anywhere in Josephus’ works except for the 2 forged parts.
– Also number 6 explaining how the Testimonium Flavianium wasn’t even in a discovered table of contents:
“Louis H. Feldman writes (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, p. 57): “The fact that an ancient table of contents, already referred to in the Latin version of the fifth or sixth century, omits mention of the Testimionium (though, admittedly, it is selective, one must find it hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian, summarizing the work) is further indication that there was no such notice…” I regard this as an important and powerful piece of evidence, although one that doesn’t get much attention.”
“Okay, back to the forged issue!
“The evidence of Josephus’s work regarding Jesus being forged is overwhelming, with countless reasons why it IS FORGED!
Shown again here:
Countless to be sure.
Okay so what we have left to address in the argument is 3) passage doesn’t fit the flow, 4) funny word use by Jo.
Well let’s go over them shall we?
– Not Josephus’ words he used to describe a religious group (tribe).
– The ‘Testamonium Flavium’ uses the Greek term ‘poietes’ with the meaning “doer” (as part of the phrase “doer of wonderful works”), but elsewhere, Josephus only uses the term poietes to mean “poet,” while it is Eusebius who uses poietes to mean “doer of wonderful works” when referring to Jesus in some of his other works.
(copied directly from Michael Sherlock’s book “I am Christ” because I just want to get this finished).
– The fact that Eusebius was the only one with any copies of Josephus’ works, but they weren’t discovered for over a 1000 years since Eusebius died and anybody could have forged them within that time.
– The fact that Josephus wrote the passages and they had parts about Jesus in them and nobody brought this to anyones attention for 1400 years.
– The fact that this again still isn’t evidence of Jesus and is nothing more than merely talking about someone else’s delusional beliefs that people heard from hearsay.
– Then on top of this he even bothers to argue about this in the first place when there’s so much CONFIRMED forgery in the new testament and gospel.
> Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 are some good examples on top of entire chapters.
“We already looked at the first link, so let’s turn to the new one.
Does it give the “countless” reasons?
Well…not really. It rehashes the arguments already presented. It even links the TBK link BB(s)J did as well.
So it’s not completely a new source, but it’s a better source!
However in regards to the forgery claim, the writer brings up a point that the passage in question “interrupts” the flow and thus is an insertion and forgery.
However: “Jeffrey Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, could “see no reason to believe the Testimonium occurs out of context.” Even if it could be said to be out of context, Lowder remarks “that would still not make it likely that the passage is an interpolation. It was common for ancient writers to insert extraneous texts or passages which seemingly interrupt the flow of the narrative (whereas today the material would be placed in a footnote).” (Lowder, Josh McDowell’s Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000).”
So it’s not a real issue, happened frequently in ancient writings.
“We have emphasized another aspect of Josephus’ work: his inveterate sloppiness. Texts suitable for tendentious revision as well as passages which contradict his motives are sometimes left untouched. The narrative is frequently confused, obscure, and contradictory.”
(Shaye J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, page 233).
So the “flow” argument isn’t really one…
Oh listen to Crackpipe here. Unbelievable.
– Of course it’s an argument.
– So because one Atheist spokesperson says it doesn’t seem out of line in a sorts that is supposed to make it all ok?
> Crackpipe can just keep dreaming.
– What other quotes does Lowder say in the same article? Let’s post some.
“Unlike Josephus’ shorter reference to Jesus, this passage is extremely controversial. Indeed, even McDowell admits this when he writes that the Testimonium Flavianum is “a hotly-contested quotation.” Most scholars suspect there has been at least some tampering with the text on the basis of some or all of the italicized sections. Thus scholarly opinion can be divided into three camps: those who accept the entire passage as authentic; those who reject the entire passage as a Christian interpolation into the text (perhaps authored by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius); and those who believe that the original text contained an authentic reference to Jesus but was later embellished by Christian copyists.”
“There was one objection which McDowell and Wilson did not discuss, but which I think deserves to be taken seriously by anyone who defends a reconstructed Testimonium. According to that objection, the fact that there has been any tampering with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect; a heavy burden of proof falls upon anyone who defends partial authenticity. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what to think about this objection.”
– Also the fact that it still is nothing but evidence of a delusional belief that was common knowledge, whether it is real, or fake.
“And the last one: funny words.
The claim here is that there are words an phrases that Jo wouldn’t and didn’t ever use, thus TF is a forgery.
Well, if you read the link: http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_josephus.html
You saw that argument laid to rest before we got to it.
Ugh. I gotta go to that pointless hunk of garbage again? Great. Ok, oh well.
– Crackpipe truly is the time waster of timewasters and I guess I really should have listened to my advice, but in the end I will get that great article “Evidence of Jesus is meaningless part 2” out of it, so I guess it was worth it.
– So Professor Meier (a brainwashed delusional) says regarding for the term “doer”.
“It is used elsewhere in Josephus only in the sense of “poet”; but Josephus . . . has a fondness for resolving a simple verb into two words: a noun expressing the agent and the auxiliary verb (e.g., krites einai for the simple krinein). Moreover, Josephus uses such cognates as poieteos, ‘that which is to be done,” poiesis, “doing, causing” (as well as “poetry, poem”), and poietikos, ‘that which causes something” (as well as “poetic”).
> An explanation, but not anything that actually says how it isn’t a forgery placed word.
> The word is still out of place and suspicious and completely out of character for Josephus.
> There are still multiple scholars who see this as nonsense for a defense.
– I have an explanation on how Crackpipe actually believes Jesus is God and christianity to be true based on zero evidence and how everything about christianity is proven false due to science, logic and facts.
> Brainwashed through being caught in an emotional, or mental vulnerability.
> Child indoctrinated.
– Meier also says that Josephus says “incredible deeds” in 2 other places.
> Still doesn’t escape the fact that Josephus wouldn’t have said “incredible deeds” in regards to Jesus in the first place because he didn’t believe there was anything magical, or incredible about Jesus, the fictional character that Josephus heard about through hearsay.
– Josephus still only uses the term “tribe” for ethnic groups NOT religious groups, while Eusebius does use the term “tribe”.
> Meier saying that Eusebius copied the term “tribe” from the Testimonimum is pure hilarity and screams of desperation.
– Josephus was talking about another person named Jesus who had a brother named James in the second passage.
> Jesus and James in the way they were said and written were quite common then. The “christ” part was an obvious insertion.
– I don’t believe the entire TF was forged, just certain forgeries inserted.
> They obviously were and even if they weren’t they are nothing but the parrotting of a delusion.
– There is nothing credible about anything in Josephus’ writings regarding Jesus being a real person, which results as “evidence”.
“To BB(s)J this adds up to:
“e) Christianity’s greatest piece of evidence of Jesus is actually christianity’s greatest evidence how it is nothing but, fraud, lying, deception and brainwashing.”
Eh…sure! IF you hang with the scholarship of the 1900’s, which must be far superior than today’s!
What it boils down to is this: we saw BB(s)J had only two core arguments: 1) date (as always) and 2) forgery.
1) as we know, but BB(s)J has trouble with it, is not a great argument. (especially when you have little else)
2) we see is weak and just grasping at straws and is only convincing to those who already believe Josephus
Is: “STILL DEFINITELY NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING! LIKE REALLY REALLY DEFINITELY NOT!
Isn’t it funny then that Crackpipe went from 4 arguments to now only 2?
Before Crackpipe said:
1) E was a known forger.
2) silence from early Church fathers about what Jo wrote on Jesus.
3) the passage doesn’t seem to fit with those around it
4) wording supposedly not used by Jo
– Now he’s adding #5 which is “time”, which Crackpipe never even brought up this whole time wasting article he wrote.
– So that’s fine, we’ll just go through them all again.
1) Eusebius was a well known forger and the fact that Eusebius was the ONLY one to have copies of Josephus’ works and that these Josephus quotes of Jesus were never referenced until the 15th CENTURY (well over 1000 years) is undeniable.
– The fact that Josephus was as jewish as you can get and that what was found was completely not what he believed, or thought makes it completely unbelievable.
– Multiple biblical scholars agree that it was Eusebius, or someone else who forged the Jesus references.
> Some say all of the TF was forged.
> Some say part of it was forged.
> Forged is forged.
> Even if the Josephus parts weren’t forged it would still be about someone parrotting a religious belief and nothing else.
2) For no one to have referenced the Josephus writing about Jesus passages for well over a 1000 years AND NOT BEFORE, with people having full access and constantly searching for evidence of Jesus, is just insane.
> Crackpipe is insulting his intelligence and anyone else’s intelligence who he tells that this is an insignicant point.
> This is Crackpipe doing his best to make us simply dismiss something by doing nothing but imply that they aren’t important.
> The most Crackpipe can do is give us references of people who also imply we should overlook this fact simply because they say so.
> Meanwhile the reasons they give to ignore the silence are as empty and irrelevant as using rainbows to prove the flood and Noah’s ark happened.
3) They don’t fit with what was around them and the fact that Josephus was a jew who didn’t believe in Jesus being the messiah and didn’t talk like a brainwashed faith based christian can’t be denied.
> No matter how many times Crackpipe attempts to mislead anyone from again just dismissing something, because Crackpipe, or someone else implied we should just ignore it, doesn’t change the fact that a devout jew, does not talk like a christian glorifying christianity.
4) It is highly suspicious about some of the wording that were in the passages and multiple scholars note the same thing.
– Crackpipe referenced people who gave empty, meaningless answers that disproved nothing about the fact that the wording was suspicious and out of place for Josephus.
– Like the fact that you can’t disprove God because you can disprove something that does not exist in the first place, you can’t disprove something from being suspicious if it never wasn’t suspicious, especially by not giving any reasons, but instead just simply implying that it isn’t suspicious.
5) As for the time issue, since Crackpipe didn’t bring that up until the end, well yeah of course that’s an issue.
– What I am curious about is why Crackpipe never addressed the time issue til the very end of this.
> Because Crackpipe knows that there really is no defense of the time issue.
> Because the time issue is undeniable no matter how many times Crackpipe tries to imply to us that it isn’t an issue.
> The time issue is definitely an issue and gives the existence of Jesus even less credibility.
> The fact that what is written in Josephus whether it is forged, or not forged, is nothing but talking about the christian religion and a character within that religion, for which we know that Josephus did not believe in and is simply told even longer ago.
– Bringing up the time issue, let’s talk then AGAIN about how these Jesus references were NEVER referenced UNTIL the 15th century.
> Josephus was often quoted and read throughout the centuries by people looking for Jesus references and quotes, so OVER A 1000 YEARS?!! WTF?!
– Speaking again of the time issue:
> Josephus never knew Jesus and wasn’t born til after his supposed death.
> Josephus’s father never told him anything about Jesus.
> Josephus wrote these works that Jesus was referenced in over 60 years after Jesus’s supposed death and the Jesus references weren’t discovered til over 1000 years later, in the possession of a known forger.
– The fact that every year that goes by with zero evidence and nothing to back it up with eyewitnesses, video, audio, pictures and is based on nonsensical hearsay, just becomes more and more absurd the more time goes on.
> Crackpipe can go “haha he said video, audio and pictures” all he wants but since there isn’t any, then I’m pretty sure there really isn’t any other way to confirm that a man-god came back to life who is the omnipotent master and creator of the universe.
> When you actually think about it, think about how easy it actually would be to make people think you were a god back then.
> David Blain and Chris Angel would just have to tell some people they were gods and they would believe them.
> Crackpipe is the one grasping at straws by saying that 60-200, to even 1000 years later is credible, or believable, especially when there is zero evidence and there are several factors that say that the belief isn’t even true in the first place.
6) Crackpipe forgot the point about how Josephus’ writings simply aren’t evidence of anything, even if they weren’t partly forged, or wholly forged.
> Just repeating hearsay and parrotting a delusion that a bunch of suckers believed in simply for the reason that back then people didn’t know anything and religion and superstition are what gripped the world.
7) Crackpipe also didn’t bring up the fact that Josephus was a devout jew who didn’t believe in the messiah, or christianity, so he wouldn’t have believed in Jesus since he never knew, or met him.
8) Let’s also remind Crackpipe of the fact that in Josephus’ writings….
He made mention of approximately twenty different people, all with the name Jesus, and that some of these characters included; Jesus the son of Sapphias, Jesus the son of Gamala, Jesus the son of Phabet, Jesus the son of Sie, Jesus the son of Fabus, Jesus the son of Thias, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the brother of Onias, Jesus the brother of John, Jesus the Galilean, who was a great military commander and many others. (From Michael Sherlock’s Forging the Historical Jesus- The Jesus Fraud).
– Probably more reasons but I just want to get these responses done now at this point.
> I will just try to rush through them if possible.
As I said before though for multiple reasons Josephus is definitely not evidence for Jesus’ existence but merely evidence for the following:
> Evidence of the desperation of christians.
> Evidence of the dishonesty of christians.
> Evidence that christians will say anything.
> Evidence that christians simply just dismiss everything and try to pass off their dismissals as some kind of an answer.
> Evidence that if christians didn’t lie, mislead and deceive people then they couldn’t do apologetics at all.
> Evidence that christianity is nothing but a waste of time.