The Virgin Birth

Interesting. Makes some sense. Of course if he created this earth he should be able to control that aspect of his life as well. We all have the capacity to become gods like him.

Of course you first need to demonstrate Jesus existed in order for his message to be misunderstood.

No Jesus = No message = No Misunderstanding.

Unfortunately it works like this.

Lots of different Pre Christian Ideas = Jesus = contradicting message = Lots of Misunderstanding = Lots of dead people.

Jesus is one of many, because what Jesus was is the end game for all humans. The fullfillment of a long journey.

They are no longer "required" to be here. They've graduated. They visit, but little point to a human existance now.

School is no longer needed.

There is a level beyond what is taught in Christianity. One finds it by applying the essence of Jesus' teachings. Compassion.

To be able to feel the pain of another as if it were your own, is only the beginning. The idea is to expand this sensitivity outward until all of creation is your "body". Your "kingdom" as Jesus spoke of.

When this becomes realized, the individual self is reborn as a component part of "God". It still has it's own individuality, but is no longer bound to it in the way of most people. It can travel all of creation, but can still put it's foot in the door of this world anytime it wants to.

Often offering hints as to where the door is. It's all a big game really. God likes to play with his toes. They have individual realities, but are still connected at the base, as is all of creation.

In more advanced understanding, the idea of being apart from God evaporates away.

There is a singular consciousness at work, manifesting in many different forms. Of which you and I are a part of.

Separate. Yet still joined at the base. Those who are in love with themselves as individuals cannot see this connection.



x

In the Gospel of Luke in 1:35 it gives a good description how the virgin birth happens,

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

Therefore, the sinful nature of Mary didn't matter because her nature was undermined by the coming of the Holy Spirit and the power of God overshadowed her.

Mary was a vessel for the Lord to develop into a baby in. Since it was a virgin birth He did not share any of Marys characteristics. This is very important because He needed to be an entirely new creation, a second Adam not tainted by the sin nature shared by every human being since the fall of man. He had to be The spotless Lamb without any defect in order for his sacrifice to be effectual. Just as Adam's sin was passed on to us all. Christ's perfection could be credited to all his people.

Sorry, but all indications are that the virgin birth story in Matthew and Luke (Mark and John make no mention of it, nor does Paul, who wrote even earlier) is nothing more than adaptation of Pagan myths into Christianity.

Virgin birth was common in many of the religions preceding Christianity and never mentioned in Christianity until the 2nd century CE. Many of the earliest Church Fathers; especially Paul, the true founder of the present incarnation of Christianity, seem to have no knowledge of the virgin birth of Jesus. However, the ancients believed that many of their gods were immaculately conceived and born of virgins, either goddesses or mortal women. A few of these are:

Mut emu a, the virgin queen of Egypt was said to have given immaculately conceived virgin birth to the Pharaoh Amenophis III. In the temple that he built in Luxor, the story of his conception and birth are told on the walls ? The Annunciation, where the god Tht announces to the Queen that she is to become a mother. The Immaculate Conception, wherein the god Kneph (the Egyptian equivalent of the Holy Spirit) mystically impregnated the virgin Queen. The Birth of the Man God Amenophis III. The Adoration, where in the new born is adored by gods, men and (believe it or not) three Magi?now where have I heard that story before?

Horus was said to have been born the child of the Virgin Goddess Isis, according to some stories as the parthenogenetic child of the virgin mother or by other stories, the son of the dead god Osiris.

Attis, the Phrygian god, was said to be the son of the virgin Nana.

Dionysos, the Greek God, was said to be the son of Zeus and the virgin Semele, and was thus half human and half divine. His myth, current long before the Christian era has him persecuted by the King of Thebes, to have disappeared from earth and reappearing as a light shining bright as the sun, speaking to his disciples (now what is that similar to?) and he also visited Hades. This story appears in ?The Bacchae?, written around 410 BCE by Euripides, and thus predates Christianity by 4 centuries.
Jason, the Greek Hero slain by Zeus, was said to have been the son of the virgin goddess Persephone.

Perseus, another Greek Hero, was said to have been born of a virgin?a story that had Justin Martyr attempting to explain why the Christian story was so similar to other virgin birth stories by saying that Satan had foreknowledge of Jesus? birth and subsequently counterfeited the miracle before it actually happened?thus unknowingly assigning Satan equal powers to Jehovah?LOL

Adonis, the Syrian god; Osiris, the first person of the Egyptian Trinity; and Mithras, the Persian god, all had similar strange tales told about their births ? Adonis was born of a tree (his mother, a virgin had been transformed into a tree and a boar scrapping his tusk against the tree caused him to spring from the tree, fully formed) , Mithras was born from a rock (one version has him born of a virgin in a cave) and Osiris was born of the Goddess Nut, possibly fathered by the god Ra (at which time a great voice announced from the temple that a good and great king had been born). At the time when Christianity arose all these gods were worshipped in various parts of the Roman empire. Attis, Adonis, Dionysos, Osiris, and Mithra were the principal gods in their respective countries; and those countries together formed the greater part of the Eastern provinces of the Roman empire, and of its great rival, the Persian empire.

Classical mythology is full of kindred stories, and the idea of a virgin birth was familiar to all men of that time. Of Plato it was related that his mother Perictione was a virgin who conceived him immaculately by the god Apollo. Apollo himself revealed the circumstances of this conception to Ariston, the affianced husband of the virgin. So even , as you can see, even great men could be virgin born.

But hold on, even in other areas of the world there were virgin birth, immaculate conception stories?.The Buddha?s mother, Maya, having been divinely chosen to give birth to the Buddha was borne away by spirits to the Himalayas, where she underwent ceremonial purifications at the hands of 4 queens. The Bodhisattva then appeared to her, walked around her three times. At the moment when he completed his peregrinations the Buddha entered her womb and great wonders took place in heaven, on earth and in Hell.

Might also want to check out my previous thread "Are the gospels inerrant" for the information showing that Matthew and Luke disagree with each other and with recorded history - thus rendering the entire story suspect to say the least. :patriot:

Your argument may be interesting but that is all they are to me. The Bible is very clear that we do not believe because of any evidence in fact Jesus said," they will NOT believe even if a man rises from the dead". Jesus was speaking of course of non believers who not only did not believe but were and are incapable of believing because of the nature of a fallen humanity. When Jesus said regarding entering into the kingdomof heaven," You MUST be born again," He was refering to the fact that the chosen of God hear the gospel and believe it only because the spirit of God takes their dead {spirtually}heart and regenerates it into an alive heart that then believes and trusts in the Gospel. It is for this reason that I am opposed to any type of Christian teaching that tries to prove anything about God and his Kingdom through reason or logic or historical facts etc. The Bible says that "the things of God are nonsense to the NATURAL man." It also tells us that the message of the cross is an offence to anyone not regenerated by the Spirit. It does very plainly teach that us Believers are to preach the Gospel message and God will do the rest to bring His people into the Kingdom. It is very sad to me to see so much of modern day Christanity veer so far away from this fundamental truth.

So you are going to use the bible to prove the bible...LOL...the Gospels were not written by eye witnesses, nor by individuals with access to eye witnesses. Instead they were written around a century later (contrary with what most Christians believe) and written not as true reports of what was said or done but as recruiting tools. If the Gospels are really the word of god, then why does Matthew have jesus born during the reign of Herod (Herod died in 4 BCE) and Luke have him born when Caesar declared that "all men must be taxed" (Augustus himself reported that he only held one such taxation and that was in 6 CE). Why then does the gospels report that jesus died after John the Baptist, when by the NT reports Jesus died around 31 CE and according to recorded history John was executed in 35-36 CE...not much accuracy there and this lack of accuracy shows that the entire story is on shaky ground...just remember faith is believing what you know ain't so. LOL
:patriot:

Your historical facts are not facts at all and are in much dispute by scholars. Also in my post I say that it is the duty of all Christians to share the gospel and not try to reason with people over it because the gospel message is beyond reason. The Bible also tells us,
"Not to cast our pearls to swine." So I won't

The bible is just a book. A patchwork quilt of different ancient stories and chronicles of people who had divine experiences. It is NOT the "Word of God". Only a living person can hold that title.

Why would you not believe that such people walk the world today?

Hippies have been accused of being stuck in the 60's. I charge that Christians have a similar problem. Jews have been waiting at the bustop even longer than you have.

I'm ballsy enough to tell you that the church bus doesn't go to heaven. This is a journey that requires footwork. You need to start walking.

It is belief that hides God from you. Remember that.

Let go of belief, God comes rushing in.



x

Actually, they are not, each myth that I mentioned were reference by ancient writers long before the time Jesus supposedly lived:
Attis? myth was mentioned many times but the most famous writer to mention him was Strabo in the 1st Century BCE
Mut emu a?s myth was recorded (as I pointed out before) on the walls of the Temple at Luxor, built by her son Amenhotep III in the 12th century BCE
Dionysus? myth was an old one dated from around the 6th century BCE, Euripides (480 ? 406 BCE) wrote about the myth. You might want to check out the writings of Martin Hengel, Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism at the University of Tubingen and Barry Powell, Professor of Classics at the University of Wisconsin.
Perseus? myth, is also a very ancient one, possibly pre-Homeric and a good source of the myth is Apollodorus of Athens who wrote in the 2nd century BCE
Adonis? myth can be found in ?Hyacinth? written Euphorion of Chalcis in the 3rd century BCE?this was a particular favorite of the Romans and was even translated by Emperor Tiberius (of biblical fame)
Osiris? myth can be found in numberous ancient writings like the Palermo Stone (2500 BCE), the Pyramid Texts (2400 BCE), the Shabaka Stone and the Contending of Horus and Seth (7th century BCE) and the writings of the Greek writers Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus, both writing in 1st Century BCE or very early 1st Century CE.
Mithras? myth was mentioned by Plutarch, who reported that the pirates of Cilicia (destroyed by Julius Caesar) were the originators of the cult known by the Romans.
Buddha?s story (I won?t call it a myth since there is as much, if not more evidence for Buddha than for Jesus) comes from the Sutta Nipata, Itivuttaka, Dhammapada, Therigatha, Udana and Jataka from the 3rd century BCE
As you can see, each of these myths can be documented prior to the period Christians believe Jesus lived in. Isn?t it strange that all these much older gods and demi gods had much similar births and conceptions as Jesus and centuries before him?

The bible also tells you, ?Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. A foolish woman (I am sure you can substitute man here also) is clamorous: she is simple and knoweth nothing.?
I don't care what you believe, that is your choice...just don't try to pass off mythology as history. :patriot:

My philosophy as well.

The human self is never so smart as to ignore something new.

The mind likes playthings. The spirit just waits until it's done.

Like walking the dog...



x

No...you have that backwards. The Holy Scriptures declare the existence of Jesus, as demonstrated in "Eye Witness" testimony ( 2 Peter 1:16). You have as of yet to prove one historical event as recorded in the New Testament as not being historically accurate. All you offer is an ad hominem "straw" argument presented with no empirical evidence to debunk the historicity of Jesus. While on the other hand there is a plethora of externally existing evidences declaring the fact of Jesus history. The most damaging to your straw argument is the fact of the writings of the Roman Empire and in particularly the works of the Jewish historian "Josephus" in his historical documentation entitled {Antiquities of the Jews}.....he directly references the existence of Jesus not once but twice in this work (18:3:3...a work that has merely been disputed in RECENT HISTORY, simply by OPINION only...and another passage 20:9:1, which has never been the subject of dispute).

But a STRONG majority have CONCLUDED that much of the "Testimonium Flavianum"...the disputed passage, disputed only by the opinion of the modern "Jesus Mythologists"..those that are attempting to place Jesus into realm of myth, without evidence........is the AUTHENTIC work of Josephus, as pointed out by Louis H. Fieldman...a historian that has dedicated his life to studying the works of Josephus....between the years of 1937 and 1980 an extensive study was performed entirely dedicated to the particular passage concerning Josephus testimony in relation to Jesus and out of the 52 highly qualified historical scholars 39 found portions of the disputed passage to be very authentic. But even a partial authentication proves the historical fact that an individual named Jesus in fact existed in the early 1st century.

Thus...clearly, the burden is for you to prove that both the Holy Scriptures were errant in their eye witness accounts and the following historical recordings that mention the fact of Jesus historicity within a hundred years after his death are wrong....and you are correct. We will patiently be awaiting your EMPIRICAL proof that debunks the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures and the other external historically valid recordings....in something other than your personal "straw" opinion. The Holy Scriptures are not negative...they exist even today...the only thing negative is YOUR OPINION, in trying to disprove the actual physically recorded writings of the New Testament authors. Please enlighten us with YOUR PROOF. :rollinglaugh:

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus

In 93 CE, Flavius Josephus published his ?Antiquities of the Jewish? in which we find the infamous ?Testimonium Flavianum? or officially ?Antiquities 18.3.3? which is quoted below:
Antiquities 18.3.3. "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 to this day."
The Testimonium Flavianum is contentious for various reasons. Very few scholars accept it as is currently written, but many do accept it with interpolations of varying degrees. The major question here is what are the interpolations or is the entire Testimonium a forgery inserted no earlier than the 4th century CE by a Christian with an agenda? I find the likelihood of a pious Jews such a Josephus to pen the phrase ?He was the Messiah? and remain a Jew extremely low. It would also be unlikely that an author writing a history of the Jewish people for Roman consumption and with the backing of the Roman Emperor to write something that would make him suspect of treason and open him up to the prerequisite punishments of such a charge. In ?Wars of the Jews?, published prior to ?Antiquities?, he had made the statement that Vespasian had fulfilled the Messianic oracles. Hardly the statement of a Jew converted to Christianity! Origen, wrote twice that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
Either the passage ?Antiquities 18.3.3 (the Testimonium) received a few interpolations or it is entirely an interpolation. The phrases ?He was the Christ?, ?If it be lawful to call him a man? and "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" are the ones most often not accepted by those favoring partial authenticity. Even the name assigned to the passage, ?Testimonium Flavianum? has a Christian ring to it, much like a Christian testimony. There as many points made against the validity of the passage, some of the more important are:

Josephus? use of the phrase ?to this day? is considered indicative of a writer writing long after the events being reported. Many Christians believe a span of 60 years between the death of Jesus and the publishing of ?Antiquities? would be too close for Josephus to made a believable use of it and that the very survival of Christianity that long would cause some surprise, since most cults vanish shortly after the death of their founders. This argument is very weak when you consider many of the modern cults like Mormons, Jehovah?s Witnesses, etc that are around and thriving long after the death of their founders.
Josephus? description of Jesus is unusually shorter than his norm, less than half the size of John the Baptist?s. The Christian rebuttal to this is that it only serves to show Jesus? lack of importance to populace of Judea at that time, that John and others such as the ?Egyptian? were much better know, thus rated larger descriptions. This really doesn?t wash, because the ?Antiquities? was targeted to a Roman audience who would not have known John, Jesus, or the ?Egyptian? from Adam, consequently Josephus gave in detail information on his characters. Something that he did not do in the ?Testimonium?

When writing the ?Jewish War? in the 70s CE, Josephus outlined two incidents in the section on Pilate that he used to begin chapter 3 of Book 18 of the Antiquities, incidents that had caused tumult in Judea during Pilate?s tenure as Governor. Whereas these incidents are followed immediately by the ?Testimonium? in the Antiquities, in the corresponding section of the Jewish Wars (2.9/169/177) there is no mention at all of Jesus. Christian scholars argue that in the intervening decade between the books, that Christianity had become more important. This is highly unlikely since interpolations of the number of Christians in the late 1st century and 2nd century (based on number of Bishops and average number of churches under a Bishop and average church membership) indicate that only by the end of the 2nd century CE did the number of Christians reach over 100,000 out of a population of several millions in the Empire

The language Josephus used to describe John, although over twice as lengthy, when compared to the language of the ?Testimonium? is extremely close, almost as if it were used as a template for the ?Testimonium?s? description of Jesus. This is indicative of there being no reference to Jesus at all in the original version of Antiquities.

There is an ancient table of contents in the ?Antiquities? that omits mention of the ?Testimonium?; this is further indication that there was no such passage in the original version (this table of contents shows in the oldest existing manuscripts).

It is argued that the reference to "the tribe of Christians so named from him" requires the earlier phrase "He was the Christ." This is another reason to suspect this passage to be a later insertion. It was considered poor form in Josephus day to spell out a connection that was taken for granted.

The ?Testimonium? seems to be out of context with the rest of Antiquities 18, whereas Josephus had been speaking of upheavals and the folly of Jewish rebels, governors and troublemakers, but there is no upheaval shown in this passage and it is completely supportive of Jesus and his followers. Contrary to his normal writing, there is no criticism of Jewish or Roman authorities; there is no moral or lesson. The closest the passage comes to criticism is in his statement, ?and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross?, which if you cross your eyes and squint real hard, might look like criticism, and again might not. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage. At best, with the ?Testimonium? the flow from the previous paragraph to the ?Testimonium? to the following paragraph is choppy and gives the impression of being not quite thought out. Without the ?Testimonium? the flow from the previous paragraph to the final paragraph is natural and smooth, but the flow.



The passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general, but this passage is completely supportive of both Jesus and his followers. Logically, what should appear in this context ought to imply some criticism of the Jewish leaders and/or Pilate, but Josephus does not make any such criticism explicit. He says only that those who denounced Jesus were 'the leading men among us.' So, unlike the other episodes, this one has no moral, no lesson. Although Josephus begins the next paragraph by speaking of 'another outrage' that caused an uproar among the Jews at the same time (18.65), there is nothing in this paragraph that depicts any sort of outrage. It is also argued that the continuity of the flanking passages works best when no passage about Jesus intervenes. The final thought of the previous paragraph flows naturally into the words of the one following, whereas the opening of the latter paragraph does not fit as a follow-up to the closing sentence of the Testimonium.

None of the early Christians cite the ?Testimonium? in their works, not Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexander, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius,
nor Lactantius. Although each of these writers show familiarity with the works of Josephus, as pointed out by Michael Hardwick in ?Josephus as a Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius?. Origen used passages from the Antiquities to establish the historicity of John the Baptist and would have been eager to quote the Antiquities to prove the historical existence of Jesus. Interestingly, It was for the purpose of proving that Jesus performed true miracles, not to establish his historicity, that Eusebius quoted the ?Testimonium? in his ?Evangelical Demonstration?. So we can show that the early Church Fathers would have gladly quoted an existing ?Testimonium?. This is an absence of proof, but strong evidence of the ?Testimonium? being a much later Christian interpolation.

The language style of the ?Testimonium? shows several deviations from Josephus? normal writing, in that it uses words in ways uncharacteristic of Josephus as pointed out by Steve Mason in ?Josephus and the New Testament?. He continues on with the example of the word poietes (from which we get the word poet), translated as ?worker? in the phrase ?worker of incredible deeds?. Etymologically, it means ?one who does? and so it can refer to any sort of ?doer?. But in Josephus? day it had already come to have special reference to literary poets, and that is how he consistently uses it elsewhere (nine times) ? to speak of Greek poets like Homer (p. 169). Notice further that the phrase "they did not cease" has to be completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing. (p. 169) Again, the phrase "the tribe of the Christians" is peculiar. Josephus uses the word "tribe" (phyle) eleven other times. Once it denotes "gender," and once a "swarm" of locusts, but usually signifies distinct people, races, or nationalities: the Jews are a "tribe" (War 3.354; 7.327) as are the Taurians (War 2.366) and Parthians (War 2.379). It is very strange that Josephus should speak of the Christians as a distinct racial group, since he has just said that Jesus was a Jew condemned by Jewish leaders. (Notice, however, that some Christian authors of a later period came to speak of Christianity as a "third race.") (pp. 169-170). Finally, there is a peculiarity with the reference to the "principal men among us." Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural. In his autobiography, Josephus refers to the "principal men of the city" (2), "the principal men of Jerusalem" (7), the "principal men of the city" (12), the "principal men belonging to the city" (12), the "principal men of the city" (12), and the "principal men of Jerusalem" (44). In each case Josephus identifies the leading men as belonging to Jerusalem.

There are several ways in which the Testimonium aligns with the style and argument of Eusebius of Caesarea. In his "Eusebian Fabrication of the Testimonium", Ken Olson writes that in Adversus Hieroclem Eusebius argued that if he had to accept the supernatural feats attributed to Apollonius, he must regard him as a GOHS [wizard] rather than a wise man (A.H. 5); here he has Josephus call Jesus a 'wise man' and thus, implicitly, not a GOHS. The term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus (D.E. 114-115, 123, 125, H.E. 1.2.23). Eusebius' opponents were not denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).
Olson concludes: "the Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in the Demonstratio so closely that it is not only very unlikely that it could have been written by Josephus, but it is unlikely it could have been written by any other Christian, or even by Eusebius for another work. There is nothing in the language or content of the Testimonium, as it appears in the Demonstratio Evangelica, that suggests it is anything other than a completely Eusebian composition."

As Earl Doherty stated in ? The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ??: "the entire tenor of such an 'original' does not ring true for Josephus. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, he has nothing but evil to say. Indeed, he condemns the whole movement of popular agitators and rebels as the bane of the century. It led to the destruction of the Temple, of the city itself, of the Jewish state. And yet the 'authentic' Testimonium would require us to believe that he made some kind of exception for Jesus." (pp. 210-211). It is argued that Josephus wrote the passage in a carefully neutral tone, however his readers were primarily Roman, some Jewish. What reason would he have had for being, in Meier's phrase, "purposely ambiguous"? He had nothing to fear from Christians, and no reason to consider their sensibilities. Regardless of what he may have thought about the character of Pilate, if Pilate had executed Jesus, then there had to have been - in official Roman and Flavian eyes - a justification for doing so. Crucifixion was a punishment for rebels, and Jesus' crucifixion would have been seen as part of Rome's ongoing campaign to deal with the problems of a troubled time in a troubled province. (p. 213). Thus, the fact that the reconstructed Testimonium has nothing but nice things to say about Jesus tends to work in favor of its inauthenticity. Consider the reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (sophos aner). Josephus reserves this phrase elsewhere for such worthies as King Solomon (Ant. 8.53) and the prophet Elisha (Ant. 9.182). Mason notes, "If Josephus said it, it was a term of high praise." (p. 171) But it is inconceivable that Josephus should have such high praise for one who is only given so little space and who is attributed with such negative characteristics (to Josephus) as apocalyptic prophecy and the cleansing of the Temple. True, the above is inconclusive, but are much stronger arguments than can be put forward for the authenticity of the passage.

As far as the 20.9.1 quotation from the Antiquities, The James, brother of Jesus could very well have been the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus, the contender for the High Priesthood along with Ananus, and politically quite strong with the Romans and the Jews. If would make for sense for this to be a ?hit? against a rival (through his family) than trumping up charges against what was then thought of as a small sub sect of the Jewish religion, followers of a rebel crucified for sedition against the Romans! Many scholars consider this passage questionable at best. I hope that this will clear up any misconceptions you have about the lack of historical backing of Jesus of Nazareth (which didn?t exist until the middle of the second century CE, but we won?t go there now). - Mako :patriot:

What he said :thumbup:

Or in order to avoid being stoned for having sex out of wedlock and getting pregnant, Joseph and Mary devised a simple story: We never had sex, but a god impregnated me. Which was in fact a very accepted belief of the time, gods impregnating women. Thats my view on the spill. Cya's

Mako, when you copy and paste bad and dated history at least cite the source, because its hardly academic. Virgin Births in History

parthenogenesis - Google Search
:whistling:

:rollinglaugh:It only makes sense to delusional people who think their gods. :rollinglaugh: That's called 'delusions of grandeur." The irrational degree that atheists go to deny God & pretend that humans are gods is endless. :rolleyes: