It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus Christ Had Two Kids With A Prostitute, ‘Lost Gospel’ Claims

page: 11
60
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258
Funny, now all the Atheists are gonna crawl out of the woodwork talking about how bad Jesus was, then in two weeks when some other fake proof says Jesus didn't exist at all they are gonna flock there. Atheists can't decide which story they want to stick with. Jesus didn't exist? He was married to a prostitute? He wasn't crucified. All you guys want to do is destroy Christianity . Oh and I'm an Atheist by the way, I just don't care that Christinsns believe in a god. You guys continue to waste your time and lose sleep though.


Are you really an "atheist?" Few atheists have your statements like "All you guys want to do is destroy Christianity." Most actual atheists know that atheists' intent or primary desire is not to destroy Christianity.

It's like this one time I saw on another article: "I am an atheist and a liberal but I think it's true that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins. Just saying." Seriously.

Atheists come in all stripes. Or like myself, many people have just moved on from Christianity and moved on to a more open and comprehensive spirituality.

Did Jesus exist? Totally possible. But that means nothing. Muhammed existed. Does that mean Islam is true? Buddha surely existed. Does that make Buddhism true?

Jesus existing says nothing about miracles like rising from the dead and so on.

I respect Jesus' teachings and wisdom but I do not think general Christian theology is correct.
edit on 11-11-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-11-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Are you daft???? Definitely a troll. You keep linking and quoting about 18.3...

Here is what you need to be looking at, and this is from YOUR source.



The 20.9.1 Reference
The following passage contains the shorter reference to Jesus.
Antiquities 20.9.1. "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

Although Rajak is an exception, most have granted that this passage is substantially authentic for two reasons....[read more at source]


So, stop commenting on 18.3 and read about 20.9. He clearly mentions Jesus by name as well as the fact he was also called Christ.
edit on 11-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

The first paragraph of the paper that I linked:


Flavius Josephus published a history of the Jews in twenty books around 93 CE. In the 18th and 20th books, there are two little references to Jesus that have inspired a massive literature on their authenticity or spuriousness. The purpose of this paper is to survey all of the relevant arguments concerning the authorship of these passages.

The following outline is provided.

The Testimonium Question
Arguments that the Testimonium is Spurious
Arguments that the Testimonium is Authentic
The 20.9.1 Reference
Arguments that the 20.9.1 Reference is Spurious
Arguments that the 20.9.1 Reference is Authentic
Conclusion
Works Cited


The paper addresses both passages and both arguments to each individual passage.

The paper ends:


Conclusion

Proverbs 18:17 may well have been commenting on arguments concerning the Testimonium: "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." The present author was once firmly convinced that both references in the Antiquities were authentic. After reading the study of Ken Olson that shows the vocabulary of the Testimonium to be not Josephan but rather Eusebian, I am inclined to regard both references as spurious.

Even if one is convinced that the passages are interpolated, there may be a satisfactory explanation for the silence of Josephus on Jesus and Christianity. W. D. Davies explains:

But it is still more likely that the silence of Josephus is due to the character of his work: his career suggests what his aim was in his writings. He desired to remain in the good graces of the Roman Emperor: to do so he avoided in his history all that might offend Roman susceptibilities. To mention Christianity, a Messianic movement that proclaimed another King than Caesar (Acts 17:7), would be to expose Judaism, which in Rome might not be distinguished from Christianity, to "guilt by association." Perhaps Josephus would not cavil at discussing a dead Messianic movement, which no longer offered any threat to Rome, but Christianity was alive and militant. The part of prudence was to ignore it. (p. 66)
Maurice Goguel offers a similar explanation for what would be silence of Josephus:

Since Josephus has been silent not only concerning Jesus, but also concerning Christianity, how is his silence to be explained? Uniquely by the character and the object of his work. The writer desired to flatter the Romans and gain their good graces. To do this he expunged from the picture he drew everything likely to offend or to excite their apprehension. Thus it is that he has scarcely at all spoken of the Messianic cult which nevertheless constituted the center of Jewish thought in the first century. That he did so was because this cult was a menace to Rome, for the Kingdom of the Messiah could only be built upon the ruins of the Empire. (p. 36)

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...


Considering both passages, the evidence just isn't strong enough to support the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph.





posted on Nov, 11 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You're cherry picking. Your first post about this usage was that Josephus never mentions Jesus. Then you said it was a forgery. I've shown you, as well as your source, that he did indeed use the name Jesus and identified him as the Christ.

Your source confirmed that almost all scholars agree that the second passage is authentic. Now you're simply modifying your argument.
edit on 11-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




Now you're simply modifying your argument.


My argument remains the same. Josephus never mentions Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph.




And all scholars agree even in it's original state it referred to "Christ".



It's a well known forgery? I just linked you actual proof that it isn't...are you intentionally trolling?



I've already posted actual academic experts in the field who agree it is an authentic passage. It was not edited from the original.


You're the one changing the goal posts and cherry picking.



edit on 12-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You are wasting your time. Just saying.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

But he does mention Jesus and says he was called Christ, and that is an authentic passage, not a forgery as you tried to claim.

Again, saying he HAS to have mentioned that Jesus was from Nazareth or that he was the son of Joseph isn't really relevant and is just a logical fallacy.

The only one who tried to change the goal posts was you.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Any reference to Josephus calling anyone "Christ" is a forgery, period.

Josephus claimed that Vespasian fulfilled the Jewish Messiah role. End of story!



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

There you go again. So you disagree with your own source that the passage is authentic? You are saying scholarly folk are wrong and you are right?

Edit: and the Jews predominantly did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. That has nothing to do with if he was called Christ or not.
edit on 12-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Oh my god dude! Learn to read:



While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.



What I want to know is why Christians had to lie about what Josephus said in the first place? Makes you wonder what they were trying to hide in the texts that they destroyed!

Makes you wonder what else they lied about and got away with up until now!




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

No, you need to learn to read and you need to learn reading comprehension.

I quoted word for word your source that the passage IS AUTHENTIC. Your quote is saying one reference to Jesus is typically not enough, especially with how famous he supposedly was, so the burden should not fully rest on the writings of Josephus to "prove" the existence of Jesus.

Again, your source said the passage was authentic as do most other academic scholars. Why are you trying to say the passage is a forgery if the very paper you are citing says it isn't?

Again, read my list and look at the bold sections. Stop being obtuse.
edit on 12-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

It appears that you have no idea how academic papers work!

This paper represents the official opinion of fairly authoritarian site, which I loathe to link as I disagree with it most of time, from "Early Christian Writings", by Pete Kirby.

Mr Kirby gives both sides of the debate equal time.


Arguments that the Testimonium is Spurious
Arguments that the Testimonium is Authentic
The 20.9.1 Reference
Arguments that the 20.9.1 Reference is Spurious
Arguments that the 20.9.1 Reference is Authentic


Because the article quotes the "Authentic" side of the argument, you're mistakenly taking that citation as an assertion of fact and support by the author. This couldn't be further from the truth, as I've tried to show multiple times now!

The article concludes that there isn't enough evidence to use anything from Josephus' writings to prove or to disprove the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph, because of Christian interpolation.

End of story!



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yet again you're changing your stance. You said any reference to Christ by Josephus was a forgery. Again, your source disagrees with that view and says as much. I'm having fun watching you back track, change stances and double down on nothing.

One more time, your source agrees that MOST academics view the passage as authentic. That's all I've ever said.

Your firm stance that it is a forgery is innacurate. I'm not trying to argue that Jesus is real, I'm showing you that your stance of the second passage in Josephus being a forgery is your opinion and not in alignment with most academics.
edit on 12-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




You said any reference to Christ by Josephus was a forgery. Again, your source disagrees with that view and says as much.


Any reference to Christ in any of Josephus' works is a well know and accepted forgery. Josephus didn't believe in a "Christ" and wrote that Vespasian fulled the messianic prophecies and scriptures of the Messiah. So why would Josephus identify some random Jesus, who's identity he never reveals, as the "Christ".

There is no record out side of the Bible, whatsoever, that supports the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph.

There will always be die hards like you to defend the pious forgeries and lies. But you do nothing to promote your cause of proving the existence of the one historical Jesus of Nazareth of Jesus the son of Joseph.




edit on 12-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

So there you are again stating it is a well known and accepted forgery, yet the very sources you use say it isn't...

Your source says most accept the 18 passage as a forgery, but that the 20 passage is authentic.

So again, you're esposuing your opinion as fact when most scholars do not agree with your opinion.

Edit: Also, Josephus never said he was Christ or the Messiah. He said he was CALLED Christ. Most scholars feel his intent is to say he was only called it, but he wasn't actually it.


edit on 12-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




So there you are again stating it is a well known and accepted forgery, yet the very sources you use say it isn't...


He says no such thing! He addresses BOTH sides of the debate. By acknowledging that there is another side to debate, acknowledges that that there is a well know forgery to be debated! Are there rocks inside your head, just knocking back and forth?


The 20.9.1 Reference
Arguments that the 20.9.1 Reference is Spurious
Arguments that the 20.9.1 Reference is Authentic


Dude! The author states that Josephus' supposed writings can't be used for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. one way or the other, because of the weakness of its reliability. What don't you understand about that?

Josephus doesn't prove the existence of Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus the Christ for that matter!

edit on 12-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I'm not saying Josephus writings can be used to prove the existence of Jesus..

I'm saying he definitely refers to a Jesus who was called Christ. What aren't you understanding about that? Nowhere does your source say passage 20 is an accepted forgery. Why are you ignoring that aspect of the paper? Again, he flat out says most scholars agree the passage is authentic and I quoted that for you.

Again, why would Jesus have to be referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus son of Joseph? You're looking for specific phrasing for the purpose of likely not finding that phrasing.
edit on 12-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




I'm saying he definitely refers to a Jesus who was called Christ...........Again, he flat out says most scholars agree the passage is authentic



The 20.9.1 Reference
Arguments that the 20.9.1 Reference is Spurious
Arguments that the 20.9.1 Reference is Authentic


Since the author present both sides, how can you say that there isn't another side?



And again, why would Jesus have to be referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus son of Joseph? You're looking for specific phrasing for the purpose of likely not finding that phrasing.


Because, you claim that the man, who was historically known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph, is the same man who you claim became known as Jesus Christ. If there was no Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the son of Joseph then, conversely, there was no Jesus Christ either.


Jesus came to be called "Jesus Christ", meaning "Jesus the Christós" (i.e. Jesus, the anointed; or "Jesus, the Messiah" by his followers) after his death and believed resurrection. Before, Jesus was usually referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus son of Joseph".
en.wikipedia.org...


Jesus "Christ" didn't exist until after the death of Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed at all.

You have prove one to prove the other.


edit on 12-11-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

And what is the next line right after your bolded segment? And what is the opinion of your source?

The line:

Arguments that the 20.9.1 Reference is Authentic


The opinion of the author:

Most have granted that this passage is substantially authentic


Do you need me to link you to the definitions of substantially and authentic?

And Josephus wrote his works AFTER the supposed death of Jesus. Would he not refer to him by what he was called? The only reason Josephus would have even known of the existence of Jesus was because of his notoriety due to his recognition as the messiah by his followers.

Again, you claimed it was a known accepted forgery. You were wrong and now you don't want to admit your error.
edit on 12-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The main point of this thread was to suggest that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, married Jesus, and they had a couple of kids. That Mary was not a prostitute.

When you read anything that depends on a complete falsehood as it's basic assertion, you stop reading and go see if there is anything new in the UFO forums.

If you are a Christian, a real Christian, you don't care if Jesus was married, had kids, or had brothers and sisters. If you are a fundamentalist then this stuff pisses you off. Jesus does not look like Ted Neeley and even though Yvonne Elliman portrayed Mary M. as a prostitute, it was a different Mary in the Bible.

I think it would be great if Jesus married a prostitute, it would be a big redemption forgiveness type of gesture..but it wasn't the case.

I am a 48 year old life long Christian.




top topics



 
60
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join