quote:

---

You are trying to imply that I am evading answering while not reading what anyone writes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by darwin alogos
First, the you claim to have proof that Jesus never existed, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by darwin alogos
So you admit your theory has no PROOF, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by darwin alogos
I've supplied(Joesphus,Tacitus ),in addtion to the positive NT witness for Jesus existence, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by darwin alogos
So you admit your theory has no PROOF, ...


I honestly don't know if you fabricate this crap out of stupidity or deceit.

---

quote:

---

LOL, proving something does not exist is difficult...sorry....impossible,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by @tomic

How odd that you would accept forgeries as evidence ...

---

quote:

---

How odd that you would accept forgeries as evidence yet refuse hard, physical evidence when it suits you

---

quote:

---

To counter slater you present the tried and true tactics of obfuscation, denial and ignorance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by darwin alogos

Atomic accuses DA:

quote:

---

... forgeries ...

---

And yet he hasn't proffered,nor has anyone else,one shred of evidence to substantiate those charges.

---

quote:

---

The first and probably the most notable comes from the Jewish historian, Josephus, who allegedly said, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold there and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day" (Jewish Antiquities, Book 18, Chp. 3, Sec.3).

The problems inherent in this paragraph are numerous and fatal to its credibility:

(1) The alleged author, Josephus, was a devout Jew which would cause anyone familiar with the basic principles of Judaism to ask: Would a devout Jew imply that a man was not a man, that he was divine? Would he say that a man did miracles, was the Christ, and rose from the dead? And would a devout Jew say the messianic prophecies expressly referred to a man at that time?

(2) The works of Josephus are voluminous and exhaustive. They comprise nearly 20 books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly 40 chapters are devoted to a single king. Yet,Jesus is dismissed with a mere dozen lines.

(3) The passage is not found in the early copies of Josephus. Not until the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (320 A.D.) do we come across it. This is the same Eusebius who said that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ: "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).

(4) The early Christian fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen were acquainted with what Josephus wrote and it seems reasonable to conclude that they would have quoted this passage had it existed. Apparently Eusebius was the first to use it because it didn't exist during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Chrysostom often referred to Josephus and it's highly unlikely he would have omitted the paragraph had it been extant. Photius did not quote the text though he had three articles concerning Josephus and even expressly stated that Josephus, being a Jew, had not taken the least notice of Christ.

(5) Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, nor Origen against Celsus ever mentioned this passage. Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian ever quoted Josephus as a witness in their controversies with Jews and pagans and Origen expressly stated that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not recognize Jesus as the messiah (Contra Celsum, I, 47).

(6) The famous historian Gibbon claims the passage is a forgery as do many theologians.

(7) The passage interrupts the narrative. Immediately before it Josephus tells of a rising of the Jews due to bitter feeling at the conduct of Pilate, and its bloody suppression by the ruling power. The words immediately following the passage are: "Also about this time another misfortune befell the Jews" and we are told of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Tiberius on account of the conduct of some of their compatriots. What is the connection between the reference to Jesus and these two narratives? That there must be some connection if Josephus wrote the passage about Jesus goes without saying in view of the character of the writer. Josephus was always careful to have a logical connection between his statements and from a rational standpoint there is no occasion whatever toput the passage about Jesus in the connection in which we find it.

(8) The language of this passage is quite Christian and most of the passage is blaphemous from the Jewish perspective.

(9) Josephus nowhere else mentioned the word Christ in any of his works, except in reference to James, Jesus' brother (Antiquities, Book 20, Chp. 9,1).

(10) And lastly, the Arabic translation of the text, which many consider more accurate, is: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." The texts are markedly different in that: (1) The 1st says he was the Christ, while the Arabic text says perhaps he was. (2) The 1st says he appeared to them the 3rd day; the 2nd say, they reported that he had appeared. (3) The 1st says he was dispensing truth with pleasure; the 2nd says nothing about dispensing truth. (4) The 2nd account never implies that he was anything other than a man. (5) And finally,the 2nd account says his conduct was good, while the 1st says he was a "doer of wonderful works," which could be interpreted as miracles.

---

quote:

---

Pliny said, "I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath--not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave women whom they call deaconesses. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.... the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse (by them--Ed.) are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificed victims is on sale everywhere, though up till recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it."

Why apologists quote this passage is hard to understand:

(1) It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus, but only affirms the existence of Christians.

(2) If the passage is referring to Christians, then it is also saying Christians sold the flesh of their sacrificial victims.

(3) Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all. Before Constantine there was not a single law opposed to freedom of thought.

(4) Trajan was one of the most tolerant of Roman emperors.

(5) Pliny is universally conceded to have been one of the most humane of men. That Pliny would have tortured two women is highly unlikely. The person and character of women in Pagan Rome were held in high esteem.

(6) The letter implies Bithynia had a large Christian population which is improbable at that early date.

(7) The passage implies Trajan was not acquainted with Christian beliefs and customs even though Christians were quite prominent in his capital.

(8) For Christians to be found in so remote a province as Bithynia before acquiring notoriety in Rome is unlikely.

(9) Pliny says they sing a hymn to Christ as to God which Christians in Pliny's time would consider blasphemous since Jesus was no more than a man to them. His divinity was not established until 325 A.D.

(10) This letter is found in only one ancient copy of Pliny.

(11) The German literati, the most learned, say the epistle is not genuine.

(12) The genuineness of this correspondence of Pliny and Trajan is by no means certain. The tendency of the letters to put the Christians in as favorable a light as possible is too obvious not to excite some suspicion. For these and other reasons the correspondence was declared by experts to be spurious even at the time of its first publication in the 16th century.

(13) The undeniable fact is that some of the first Christians were among the greatest forgers who ever lived. This letter was first quoted by Tertullian and the age immediately preceding him was known for fraudulent writings. Tertullian and Eusebius, the people infavor of the passage's genuineness, were by no means the most reliablesources.

---