Post by RodPost by Andrew WPost by No onePost by RodOn Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:07:26 +1000, "Andrew W"
reproduce.>These were humanoid. Their craft were made of metal
and
Post by Rodemitted fire and>bright lights. They were extraterrestrials.In
the
Post by RodBible, aliens were to be treated justly and fairly. Ezekiel
22:7--
Post by Rodhttp://khanya.wordpress.comFor information about why
crossposting > > > is
Post by Rod(usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad,
see:http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
It's not aliens, your book is corrupt. It does not say metal,
not to mention the rest of the wrong things your book
says???
Shutup about your bible already! I'd wager that it is no more
accurate
Post by Rodthan many other bibles.
If you are not native to the Hebrew language then something is
always
Post by Rodlost in translation.
somewhat, if your not professional in Hebrew as Saint Jerome was.
He knew how to translate words in a limited sense, But it was a dead language
ATT
He
knew several languages very well. Is translation to latin was the best
language to translate several differ languages into the one, as a
conversion technique. He had to choose one,
However, he did not know English, nor did he write the translation you use.
The monks of his day pointed out the errors and disagreements with his
writings. They were ashamed of his drinking skills as well as living with two
women, neither of whom were related to him.
That he was educated is true. Yet he was always in conflict with those in the
RCC.
But as in all dictionarys,
words change, because people change them. IT does not make it correct
when this happens, and that is why the New Douay Rheims version that the
Vatican II has published of NOVUS ORDO, is totaly forbidden by the true
catholic church, and we do not give a dam what they claim about it, or
us doing so.
Anyone who prays to Mary is not of God. There is only one way, one path to
the Heavenly Father.
If the "Heavenly Father" wasn't so jealous and vengeful and capricious
then people wouldn't need to turn to a motherly figure.
Why does Protestantism damn motherly figures? Do you snub your mother?
Protestantism has gone a bit crazy with patriarchy.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. It changed from monotheism
to polytheism after Eusebius forged that phrase about Christ being
more than a man.
The religion has been thru a great many changes. It began as worship of
the Universe as the Creator while the Anakim, Nephalim and Rephaim
were still on the earth and as time move along it gathered up the
elements of star worship in Mesopotamia, took on elements of Pharoh
worship because of Osirus in Egypt to morph into Atun worship(The Sun)
to morph yet again into monotheism as it made it's way out of Egypt
and into Canaan to finally morph into the Mithra duplicate that we have
had since the birth of Christ and the 3 headed God.
It will change again, there beliefs seem to shift when a new idea
comes along disguised as a revelation from God.
this is just more bs.
for what you say is not true at all. God said, there would be a true
church, and for you to say anything like this, is a lie.
I'll take the word of a scholar who has studied these ancient texts
over an asshole like you!
And the amazing thing is that you cannot prove them wrong, but go
ahead and be a fool.
by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock
When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue
repeatedly raised is the purported “evidence” of his existence to be
found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and
historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE. In Josephus’s Antiquities
of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the
“Testimonium Flavianum” (“TF”):
“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 amongst 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 these and ten thousand other wonderful
things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him,
are not extinct at this day.” (Whitson, 379)
This surprisingly brief and simplistic passage constitutes the “best
proof” of Jesus’s existence in the entire ancient non-Christian library
comprising the works of dozens of historians, writers, philosophers,
politicians and others who never mentioned the great sage and
wonderworker Jesus Christ, even though they lived contemporaneously with
or shortly after the Christian savior’s purported advent.
A False Witness
eusebius church historian catholic image
Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of
truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated
continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by
Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. 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.
Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a
forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of
200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium
Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery.
As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:
“…the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said
that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian
insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by
scholars.”
So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous
authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the
arguments against the TF’s authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few
decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have
glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents
the most “concrete” secular, non-biblical reference to a man who
purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the
debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to
Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and
self-servingly accept it as “genuine” in its entirety.
To repeat, this passage was so completely dissected by scholars of high
repute and standing–the majority of them pious Christians–that it was
for decades understood by subsequent scholars as having been proved in
toto a forgery, such that these succeeding scholars did not even mention
it, unless to acknowledge it as false. (In addition to being
repetitious, numerous quotes will be presented here, because a strong
show of rational consensus is desperately needed when it comes to
matters of blind, unscientific and irrational faith.) The scholars who
so conclusively proved the TF a forgery made their mark at the end of
the 18th century and into the 20th, when a sudden reversal was
implemented, with popular opinion hemming and hawing its way back first
to the “partial interpolation theory” and in recent times, among the
third-rate apologists, to the notion that the whole TF is “genuine.” As
Earl Doherty says, in “Josephus Unbound”:
“Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had
no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction.
Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (1956, p.17), calls it ‘a
pure Christian forgery.’ Before him, Lardner, Harnack and Schurer, along
with others, declared it entirely spurious. Today, most serious scholars
have decided the passage is a mix: original parts rubbing shoulders with
later Christian additions.”
Bishop Rev. Nathaniel Lardner image
The earlier scholarship that proved the entire TF to be fraudulent was
determined by intense scrutiny by some of the most erudite, and mainly
Christian, writers of the time, in a number of countries, their works
written in a variety of languages, but particularly German, French and
English. Their general conclusions, as elucidated by Christian authority
Dr. Lardner, and related here by the author of Christian Mythology
Unveiled (c. 1842), include the following reasons for doubting the
authenticity of the TF as a whole:
“Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to
the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and
Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the
works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ;
as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be
a forgery. The arguments of the ‘Christian Ajax,’ even Lardner himself,
against it are these: ‘It was never quoted by any of our Christian
ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is
quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers
to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in
the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three
articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this
historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin
Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus,
who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against
Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in
chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that
Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge
Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by
Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil
Faber.'” (CMU, 47)
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.”
Origen church father
The pertinent remarks by the highly significant Church father Origen (c.
185-c.254) appear in his Contra Celsus, Book I, Chapter XLVII:
“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” (Emphasis added)
Here, in Origen’s words, is the assertion that Josephus, who discusses
more than a dozen Jesuses, did not consider any of them to be “the
Christ.” This fact proves that the same phrase in the TF is spurious.
Furthermore, Origen does not even intimate the presence of the rest of
the TF. Concerning Origen and the TF, Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses
to the Historicity of Jesus:
“In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said
that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of
Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a
manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about
Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an
interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not.” (Drews, 9;
emph. added)
According to the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled (“CMU”), this
Vossius mentioned by a number of writers as having possessed a copy of
Josephus’s Antiquities lacking the TF is “I. Vossius,” whose works
appeared in Latin. Unfortunately, none of these writers includes a
citation as to where exactly the assertion may be found in Vossius’s
works. Moreover, the Vossius in question seems to be Gerardus, rather
than his son, Isaac, who was born in the seventeenth century.
Church Fathers Ignorant of Josephus Passage
In any event, as G.A. Wells points out in The Jesus Myth, not only do
several Church fathers from the second, third and early fourth centuries
have no apparent knowledge of the TF, but even after Eusebius suddenly
“found” it in the first half of the fourth century, several other
fathers into the fifth “often cite Josephus, but not this passage.”
(Wells, JM, 202) In the 5th century, Church father Jerome (c. 347-c.419)
cited the TF once, with obvious disinterest, as if he knew it was
fraudulent. In addition to his reference to the TF, in his Letter XXII.
to Eustochium, Jerome made the following audacious claim:
“Josephus, himself a Jewish writer, asserts that at the Lord’s
crucifixion there broke from the temple voices of heavenly powers,
saying: ‘Let us depart hence.'”
Saint Jerome image
Either Jerome fabricated this alleged Josephus quote, or he possessed a
unique copy of the Jewish historian’s works, in which this assertion had
earlier been interpolated. In any case, Jerome’s claim constitutes
“pious fraud,” one of many committed by Christian proponents over the
centuries, a rampant practice, in fact, that must be kept in mind when
considering the authenticity of the TF.
Following is a list of important Christian authorities who studied
and/or mentioned Josephus but not the Jesus passage:
Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), who obviously pored over Josephus’s
works, makes no mention of the TF.
Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch–no mention of the TF.
Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New
Testament, has not a word about the TF.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), influential Greek
theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian
school, says nothing about the TF.
Origen (c. 185-c. 254), no mention of the TF and specifically
states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was “the Christ.”
Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
The author of the ancient Syriac text, “History of Armenia,” refers
to Josephus but not the TF.
Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert–no mention
of the TF.
Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)–no mention of TF.
Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about
the TF.
Methodius, saint of the 9th century–even at this late date there
were apparently copies of Josephus without the TF, as Methodius makes no
mention of it.
Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople, not a word about
the TF, again indicating copies of Josephus devoid of the passage, or,
perhaps, a rejection of it because it was understood to be fraudulent.
Arguments Against Authenticity Further Elucidated
When the evidence is scientifically examined, it becomes clear that the
entire Josephus passage regarding Jesus was forged, likely by Church
historian Eusebius, during the fourth century. In “Who on Earth was
Jesus Christ?” David Taylor details the reasons why the TF in toto must
be deemed a forgery, most of which arguments, again, were put forth by
Dr. Lardner:
“It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior
to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
“Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word
‘Christ,’ except in the passage which refers to James ‘the brother of
Jesus who was called Christ’ (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter
9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
“Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is
impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the
Christ or used the words ‘if it be lawful to call him a man,’ which
imply the Christian belief in Jesus’ divinity.
“The extraordinary character of the things related in the
passage–of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from
the grave after being dead for three days–demanded a more extensive
treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if
he had been its author.
“The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more
naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
“It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he
often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
“It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c.
858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus,
which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus’ Antiquities did not
contain the passage.
“Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria
(153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive
reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has
mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
“Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states
categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
“This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of
Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given
us a fuller account of them somewhere.”
When the earliest Greek texts are analyzed, it is obvious that the
Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the flow of the primary material and
that the style of the language is different from that of Josephus. There
is other evidence that the TF never appeared in the original Josephus.
As Wells says:
“As I noted in The Jesus Legend, there is an ancient table of
contents in the Antiquities which omits all mention of the Testimonium.
Feldman (in Feldman and Hata, 1987, p. 57) says that this table is
already mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version of the
Antiquities, and he finds it ‘hard to believe that such a remarkable
passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian summarizing
the work.'” (Wells, JM, 201)
Flavius Josephus image
Also, Josephus goes into long detail about the lives of numerous
personages of relatively little import, including several Jesuses. It is
inconceivable that he would devote only a few sentences to someone even
remotely resembling the character found in the New Testament. If the
gospel tale constituted “history,” Josephus’s elders would certainly be
aware of Jesus’s purported assault on the temple, for example, and the
historian, who was obviously interested in instances of messianic
agitation, would surely have reported it, in detail. Moreover, the TF
refers to Jesus as a “wise man”–this phrase is used by Josephus in
regard to only two other people, out of hundreds, i.e., the patriarchs
Joseph and Solomon. If Josephus had thought so highly of an historical
Jesus, he surely would have written more extensively about him. Yet, he
does not. Lest it be suggested that Josephus somehow could have been
ignorant of the events in question, the Catholic Encyclopedia (“Flavius
Josephus”) says:
“… Josephus…was chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be
commander-in-chief in Galilee. As such he established in every city
throughout the country a council of judges, the members of which were
recruited from those who shared his political views.”
Indeed, Josephus was a well-educated Jew who lived in the precise area
where the gospel tale was said to have taken place, as did his parents,
the latter at the very time of Christ’s alleged advent. It was
Josephus’s passion to study the Jewish people and their history; yet,
other than the obviously bogus TF, and the brief “James passage”
mentioned by Taylor above, it turns out that in his voluminous works
Josephus discussed neither Christ nor Christianity. Nor does it make any
sense that the prolific Jewish writer would not detail the Christian
movement itself, were Christians extant at the time in any significant
numbers.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (CE), which tries to hedge its bet about the
Josephus passage, is nevertheless forced to admit: “The passage seems to
suffer from repeated interpolations.” In the same entry, CE also
confirms that Josephus’s writings were used extensively by the early
Christian fathers, such as Jerome, Ambrose and Chrystostom;
nevertheless, as noted, except for Jerome, they never mention the TF.
Regarding the TF, as well as the James passage, which possesses the
phrase James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, Jewish writer
ben Yehoshua makes some interesting assertions:
“Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the
Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage
(XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can
conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got
hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the
other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added… Neither passage is based on any
reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were
written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were
written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief.”
Gerardus Vossius image
Yehoshua claims that the 12th century historian Gerald of Wales related
that a “Master Robert of the Priory of St. Frideswide at Oxford examined
many Hebrew copies of Josephus and did not find the ‘testimony about
Christ,’ except for two manuscripts where it appeared [to Robert,
evidently] that the testimony had been present but scratched out.”
Yehoshua states that, since “scratching out” requires the removal of the
top layers, the deleted areas in these mere two of the many copies
likely did not provide any solid evidence that it was the TF that had
been removed. Apologists will no doubt insist that these Hebrew texts
are late copies and that Jewish authorities had the TF removed. This
accusation of mutilating an author’s work, of course, can easily be
turned around on the Christians. Also, considering that Vossius
purportedly possessed a copy of the Antiquities without the TF, it is
quite possible that there were “many Hebrew copies” likewise devoid of
the passage.
Higher Criticism by Christian Authorities
The many reasons for concluding the Josephus passage to be a forgery
have been expounded upon by numerous well-respected authorities, so much
so that such individuals have been compelled by honesty and integrity to
dismiss the Testimonium in toto as a forgery. In The Christ, John
Remsburg relates the opinions of critics of the TF from the past couple
of centuries, the majority of whom were Christian authorities, including
and especially Dr. Lardner, who said:
“A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived
so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the
transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from
Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any
Christian apologist (Lardner’s Works, vol. I, chap. iv).”
Yet, the TF was overlooked and neglected by early Christian writers. In
other words, they never cited it because it didn’t exist.
Bishop William Warburton image
Another authority, Bishop Warburton, called the TF a “rank forgery, and
a very stupid one, too.” Remsburg further related the words of the “Rev.
Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England,” who stated:
“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, interpolated in the text during the third century by some
pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus
should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject….”
In addition, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould remarked:
“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).”
Remsburg also recounts:
“Cannon Farrar, who has written an ablest Christian life of Christ
yet penned, repudiates it. He says: ‘The single passage in which he
[Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious’ (Life
of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).
“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.'”
And so on, with similar opinions by Christian scholars such as Theodor
Keim, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas and Dr. Alexander Campbell. By the time of Dr.
Chalmers and others, the TF had been so discredited that these
authorities understood it as a forgery in toto and did not even consider
it for a moment as “evidence” of Jesus’s existence and/or divinity. In
fact, these subsequent defenders of the faith, knowing the TF to be a
forgery, repeatedly commented on how disturbing it was that Josephus did
not mention Jesus.
In the modern apologist work The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel relates a
passage from a novel published in 1979 by Charles Templeton, in which
the author states, regarding Jesus, “There isn’t a single word about him
in secular history. Not a word. No mention of him by the Romans. Not so
much as a reference by Josephus.” (Strobel, 101) Strobel then reports
the response by Christian professor Edwin Yamauchi, who claimed that
Templeton was mistaken and that there was a reference to Jesus by
Josephus. Yamauchi’s fatuous response ignores, purposefully or
otherwise, the previous ironclad arguments about which Templeton was
apparently educated, such that he made such a statement. In other words,
Templeton was evidently aware of the purported reference in Josephus but
had understood by the arguments of the more erudite, earlier Christian
authorities that it was a forgery; hence, there is “not so much as a
reference by Josephus.” In this facile manner of merely ignoring or
dismissing the earlier scholarship, modern believers cling to the
long-dismissed TF in order to convince themselves of the unbelievable.
For a more modern criticism, in The Jesus Puzzle and his online article
“Josephus Unbound,” secularist and classicist Earl Doherty leaves no
stone unturned in demolishing the TF, permitting no squirming room for
future apologists, whose resort to the TF will show, as it has done in
the past, how hopeless is their plight in establishing an “historical
Jesus.” Concerning the use of Josephus as “evidence” of Jesus’s
existence, Doherty remarks:
“[I]n the absence of any other supporting evidence from the first
century that in fact the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels
clearly existed, Josephus becomes the slender thread by which such an
assumption hangs. And the sound and fury and desperate manoeuverings
which surround the dissection of those two little passages becomes a din
of astonishing proportions. The obsessive focus on this one uncertain
record is necessitated by the fact that the rest of the evidence is so
dismal, so contrary to the orthodox picture. If almost everything
outside Josephus points in a different direction, to the essential
fiction of the Gospel picture and its central figure, how can Josephus
be made to bear on his shoulders, through two passages whose reliability
has thus far remained unsettled, the counterweight to all this other
negative evidence?”
Other modern authors who criticize the TF include The Jesus Mysteries
authors Freke and Gandy, who conclude:
“Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later
Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed to shore up their
Literalist interpretation of the gospels. This, as we would see
repeatedly, was a common practice.” (Freke and Gandy, 137)
Despite the desperate din, a number of other modern writers remain in
concurrence with the earlier scholarship and likewise consider the TF in
toto a fraud.
The Suspect: Eusebius (c. 264-340)
Eusebius church father catholic historian image
In addition to acknowledging the spuriousness of the Josephus passage,
many authorities quoted here agreed with the obvious: Church historian
Eusebius was the forger of the entire Testimonium Flavianium. Various
reasons have already been given for making such a conclusion. In “Did
Jesus Really Live?” Marshall Gauvin remarks:
“Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It
is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus.
Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of
minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore,
a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the
narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it;
and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been
separated by a later hand to give it room.”
Regarding the absence of the TF in the writings of earlier Christian
fathers and its sudden appearance with Eusebius, CMU says:
“it has been observed that the famous passage which we find in
Josephus, about Jesus Christ, was never mentioned or alluded to in any
way whatever by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third
centuries; nor until the time of Eusebius, ‘when it was first quoted by
himself [sic].’ The truth is, none of these fathers could quote or
allude to a passage which did not exist in their times; but was to all
points short of absolutely certain, forged and interpolated by Eusebius,
as suggested by Gibbon and others. Even the redoubtable Lardner has
pronounced this passage to be a forgery.” (CMU, 79-80)
Moreover, the word “tribe” in the TF is another clue that the passage
was forged by Eusebius, who is fond of the word, while Josephus uses it
only in terms of ethnicity, never when describing a religious sect.
Kerry Shirts adds to this particular point:
“Eusebius studied Josephus diligently, and could thus masquerade as
he, except when he used the word ‘tribe’ to describe the Christians. All
the literature from the Ante-Nicene Fathers show they never used the
word ‘tribe’ or ‘race’ with reference to the Christians, was [sic]
either by the Fathers or when they quoted non-Christian writers.
Tertullian, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Rufinus–none use ‘tribe’ to refer
to Christians. Eusebius is the first to start the practice.”
In Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins, Edwin Johnson remarked
that the fourth century was “the great age of literary forgery, the
extent of which has yet to be exposed.” He further commented that “not
until the mass of inventions labelled ‘Eusebius’ shall be exposed, can
the pretended references to Christians in Pagan writers of the first
three centuries be recognized for the forgeries they are.” Indeed,
Eusebius’s character has been assailed repeatedly over the centuries,
with him being called a “luminous liar” and “unreliable.” Like so many
others, Drews likewise criticizes Eusebius, stating that various of the
Church historian’s references “must be regarded with the greatest
suspicion.” As Drews relates, Swiss historian Jakob Burckhardt
(1818-1897) declared Eusebius to be “the first thoroughly dishonest
historian of antiquity.” (Drews, 32/fn) Eusebius’s motives were to
empower the Catholic Church, and he did not fail to use “falsifications,
suppressions, and fictions” to this end.
Conclusion: Josephus No Evidence of Jesus
Even if the Josephus passage were authentic, which we have essentially
proved it not to be, it nevertheless would represent not an eyewitness
account but rather a tradition passed along for at least six decades,
long after the purported events. Hence, the TF would possess little if
any value in establishing an “historical” Jesus. In any event, it is
quite clear that the entire passage in Josephus regarding Christ, the
Testimonium Flavianum, is spurious, false and a forgery. Regarding the
TF, Remsburg summarizes:
“For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this
passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to
the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never
penned….
“Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is
voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are
devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty
chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable
being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets
foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly
king, is dismissed with a dozen lines….”
The dismissal of the passage in Josephus regarding Jesus is not based on
“faith” or “belief” but on intense scientific scrutiny and reasoning.
Such investigation has been confirmed repeatedly by numerous scholars
who were mostly Christian. The Testimonium Flavianum, Dr. Lardner
concluded in none too forceful words, “ought, therefore…to be discarded
from any place among the evidences of Christianity.” With such
outstanding authority and so many scientific reasons, we can at last
dispense with the pretentious charade of wondering if the infamous
passage in the writings of Josephus called the Testimonium Flavianum is
forged and who fabricated it.
Excerpted from Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by
Acharya S.
Sources:
Anonymous, Christian Mythology Unveiled, 1842
ben Yehoshua, mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
Catholic Encyclopedia, “Flavius Josephus,”
www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm
Charlesworth, James H.,
www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/sources.html
Doherty, Earl, pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle, Canadian Humanist, Ottawa, 1999
Drews, Arthur, Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, Joseph McCabe,
tr., Watts, London, 1912
Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter, The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers, NY, 1999
Gauvin, Marshall,
www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live_/html
Jerome, www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm
Johnson, Edwin, Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins,
www.christianism.com/articles/1.html
Josephus, The Complete Works of, Wm. Whitson, tr., Kregel, MI, 1981
Kirby, Peter, home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/josephus.html
Origen, www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-55.htm
Oser, Scott, www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
Remsburg, John, The Christ, www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm
Shirts, Kerry, www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/jesusand.htm
Stein, Dr. Gordon, www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.html
Strobel, Lee, The Case for Christ, Zondervan, MI, 1998
Taylor, David, www.mmsweb.com/eykiw/relig/npref.txt
Wells, G.A., The Jesus Legend, Open Court, Chicago, 1997
Wells, G.A., The Jesus Myth, Open Court, Chicago, 1999
this is what is polytheism , it is not Christian. A Christian
polytheism
Polytheism true Catholic Encyclopedia define says this, antichrist...
See where the period is after many gods. ? That, is what it is.
Period. I only believe in one God, and He is true. there are no other
God's, He is it.
The belief in, and consequent worship of, many gods. See the various
articles on national religions such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Hindu,
and the ancient religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome; see also ANIMISM,
FETISHISM, TOTEMISM, GOD, MONOTHEISM, PANTHEISM, etc.