Is the Bible Homophobic?

No, neither Josephus nor Tacitus would have referred to "Jesus," because, as i pointed out, the letter "J" did not exist. The Tacitus passage is clearly an interpolation--even christians didn't call themselves christians at that time. Professor Louis Feldman of Yeshiva University published a paper in the 1980s reviewing the academic publications of Hellenistic scholars in the modern age, and showing that more than 80% of those scholars considered the Josephus passage to be partly or entirely an interpolation. It's ludicrous to think that a Pharisee like Josephus would have had anything good to say about your boy Jesus.

I didn't make any claims about the putative Jesus. I certainly wouldn't consider him a moral teacher.

I beg to differ. In those times the language spoken in that region were either Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, and Jesus must have been known in another name in those language. Today, we know him as Jesus, but in those days he was called something else. Nevertheless, it makes no difference, because Jesus asked us to believe in who he was, rather than what he was named.

In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, he mentioned several times a man Jesus, who was called Christ. He also mentioned John the Baptist.
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.

Furthermore, it is also widely agreed on the crucifixion of Jesus as an event that happened in real life. By claiming the bible to be superstition, you have not only denied God and Jesus, but also dismissed biblical characters, characters that range from Noah to Moses, King David to King Solomon. I know many people would argue that the burden of proof is on the claimant, but I am sure that historical records like I mention account for proof, for according to most scholars there was a man named Jesus, Jesus was crucified during the reign of Tiberius. What scholars disagree on is whether Jesus was who he claimed to be. You happen to be a minority that believes that there was no Jesus, that he was invented by people initiating a religion now know as Christianity

That's absolutely false. As i have already pointed out, Louis Feldman, acknowledged as the greatest living Hellenist, and in particular, authority on Josephus, has stated that more than 80% of modern scholars consider the passage in Josephus to be an interpolation. Do you know what an interpolation is? Eusebius is probably the author of the interpolation. Do you know who Eusebius was?

It is certainly not agreed by historians. As for denying god, i certainly don't believe there is a god because there is no good reason to believe it. And the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I certainly do dismiss Moses, for whom there is not a shred of historical evidence, and the biblical account of whom has absolutely no historical evidence. David and Solomon may well have existed, but that doesn't mean that the superstitious fairy tales are correct. After all, the so-called gospels claim that Caesar Augustus called for a census "of the whole world." That is not only not true (the Romans didn't give a rat's ass about people who weren't Roman citizens), but we have a record of every lustrum he conducted. Do you know what a lustrum is? The evidence for that is literally carved in stone--the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, of which numerous inscriptions remain to this day.

You haven't mentioned a single reliable historical record, so don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining. As for your boy Jesus, there is no unambiguous evidence that he existed, either. However, as i've said for years, and numerous times in these fora, it doesn't matter if he existed or not. What matters is that so many people believe he did.

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[17][18][19]

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[20] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[17][21] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[17][22][21]

Do you have any evidence that majority of historians claim that there was no Jesus who lived? 80% might claim of interpolation, but can the same 80% claim that there was no Jesus?

I have not said that a majority of historians claim that your boy "Jesus" never lived. I don't do straw man fallacies, thank you. What i wrote, and wrote very carefully, was that in the 1980s, Louis Feldman, a world-renowned Hellenist and expert on Flavius Josephus, did a survey of modern scholarship on the Josephus passage, and stated that 80% of modern scholars considered it to be in part or entirely an interpolation. Try to keep up, will ya? That is not claiming that the putative "Jesus" never existed, just that the Josephus passage is a phony.

Origen (do you know who Origen was?) was famous in his own lifetime as a christian apologist. He never mentions the passage in Tacitus, even though it was written considerably less than a century before he was born, and he never mentions the passage in Flavius Josephus, even though that was written only about a decade before he was born. The alleged passage in Josephus is not mentioned until Eusebius makes his claim in the 4th century. The alleged passage in Tacitus was not mentioned until the 16th century. Of course, you'll have that sort of thing with forgeries. What is more telling, though, is that the alleged Tacitus passage doesn't mention your boy "Jesus." It dose mention christians, at a time when even christians didin't call themselves christians. Tacitus would have known that, too, because he was the governor of the province of Asia at the time he was writing his book, the region with he highest population of those we call christians.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Quoting from historian Earle E. Cairnes: Even granting some interpolation by Christians, most scholars agree that this basic information just mentioned(that Jesus was a wise man condemned to die on the cross by Pilate) is most like a part of the original text. Certainly Josphus was not a friend of Christianity, and this his mention of Christ has more historic value.

I'm confused:/ I'm still unsure if you think Jesus existed
FYI Origen was declared a heretic and had many of his writing destroyed. We don't know everything that he wrote and we can't conclude if he did or did not use Josephus or Tacitus in his writings

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

This is what Tacitus wrote:). Note here that the Jesus we refer to in modern times was known as Christus in those times. And the fact that he was crucified is undeniable, according to Tacitus

No, that is what it is alleged that he wrote. Seutonius, who was born a few years after the fire, gives the lie to the persecution story--his report of Nero's behavior is radically different. There are several problems here. As i've already pointed out, even christians didn't call themselves christians at that time, nor at the time when Tacitus wrote. The office of procurator as s aub-provincial governor did not exist at the time that Pontius Pilate was prefect of Iudaea. The evidence for that is also carved in stone. Just as Tacitus would have known about christians, even though they were not called that at the time and didn't call themselvse that, as an imperial governor, he would never had made the gross error of calling Pilate a procurator. There is absolutely no historical support for the claim that anyone was arrested and tried at Rome.

By the way, running off to Wikipedia is useless, since christians have been vandalizing all the articles there on your boy Jesus and early church history. For example, i just checked, and the article on Pontius Pilate was modified two days ago. If you look at the bottom of the page, the last date when an article was modified is given. But you go ahead and believe what you want--that's what you see in people who are in the grip of delusions.

My experience of christian delusion is that christians want desparately to assert that there is historical evidence for your boy "Jesus" because then they think that will entitle them to claim that everything written about him in scripture is "gospel truth"--which is, of course, nonsense.

As i pointed out, Feldman's article stated that more than 80% of modern scholars think the passage is in part or entirely and interpolation. But so what? That doesn't make your silly collection of superstitious fairy tales true.

Origen was not declared a heretic. He was censured for administering the sacraments, because he was not an ordained priest. Not only were his writings not destroyed, Eusebius of Caesarea preserved his writings. He was also known as Eusebius Pamphili because his patron, Pamphilus, had compiled a large library of early christian writnigs, including those of Origen. Once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Oxf0rd classicist and noted Tacitan specialist Henry Furneaux concludes that the evidence is too solid that the passage comes from the hand of Tacitus. One of the critics, George Albert Wells(I'm sure you know who he was) himself admits that the style is clearly Tacitan Latin.
Seutonius, in his Life of Nero, reports that after the fire, 'Punishment was inflicted on the christians, a body of people addicted to a novel and mischievious superstision.' How does that contradict?

From what I read, and that's not just wikipedia, Origen's view and theology were rejected. He was accused of heresy by the 5th Ecumenical Council and was excommunicated from the church.

Whether or not you agreed on what I said, I'm glad we had such a discussion. I don't profess to knowing everything, but I trust that the Bible is the divine truth of God, and my trust is not blind faith i.e my parents go to church, therefore I do. Rather, my faith is based on examining the scriptures thouroughly and finding that evidence(your view is that they were biased and forged) supports the Bible. I believe that there is only one absolute truth, and that is the truth of God. Different people have differing views but I'm happy to have a such a discussion to you. It's my first time on a forum and I sure hope to have more of such discussions in the future.

You are not defining blind faith correctly. Blind faith has nothing to do with who goes to church or why. Blind faith means to believe something because one wants to, and not because one has evidence for the belief.

Your remarks are cordial and friendly. I appreciate that, though you will not agree, you will not indulge in personal invective. That is not always the case in such discussions.

Your comment on Suetonius is utterly false. This is Book Six of Suetonius' The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Chapter XXXVIII, in its entirety (Book Six was about Nero, Chapter XXXVIII is about the Great Fire):

But Nero showed no greater mercy towards the citizens, or even the walls of Rome herself. When in the course of conversation someone quoted the line:

‘When I am dead, let fire consume the earth,’

he commented ‘No, it should rather be – while I yet live…’ and acted accordingly, since he had the City set on fire, pretending to be displeased by its ugly old buildings and narrow, winding streets, and had it done so openly that several ex-consuls dared not lay hands on his agents, though they caught them in situ equipped with blazing torches and tar. Various granaries which occupied desirable sites near the Golden House were partly demolished by siege engines first, as they were built in stone, and then set ablaze.
The conflagration lasted seven nights and the intervening days, driving people to take refuge in hollow monuments and tombs. Not only a vast number of tenement blocks, but mansions built by generals of former times, and still decorated with their victory trophies, were damaged, as well as temples vowed and dedicated by the kings, or later leaders during the Punic and Gallic wars, in fact every ancient building of note still extant. Nero watched the destruction from the Tower of Maecenas, and elated by what he called ‘the beauty of the flames’ he donned his tragedian’s costume and sang a composition called The Fall of Troy from beginning to end.
He maximised his proceeds from the disaster by preventing any owner approaching their ruined property, while promising to remove the dead and the debris free of charge. The contributions for rebuilding, which he demanded and received, bankrupted individuals and drained the provinces of resources.

I don't know where you came up with that persecute the christians claptrap, but it is simply not true. The source for thius the A. S. Kline translation, published in 2010, which you can read here.

Josephus according to his writing called Jesus a "wise man"... But according to Christian theologians that must have been Josephus writing because (according to their logic) had he been using the new testament to interpolate he would have used the word Rabbi.

Seems to me I remember some "wise men" (magi) from the east following his star (Jupiter). Why pagan Babylonian magi God?

So you trust the Bible as divine truth even the flat earth and why aren't you out sacrificing some lambs or sheep today on a burning altar? Been to your priest lately?

Wiki Excerpt
"the style and vocabulary are Josephan" and specific parts (e.g. the use of "wise man") are not what one would expect from a Christian forger.

Comment:
A christian forger would not use the words "wise man"?

But an Arab christian forger scribe (perhaps living in Alexandria) would have used the words "wise man" and they would also have used the words "tribe" to describe aspects of this new religion. Remember Mohamed was a later Christian convert who was illiterate though but he had scribes who accommodated him. People of many nations were converted to Christianity on the Day Of Pentecost. The Bible says "multitudes" which means "more than you could count". Arab converts would have taking a liking to the works of Josephus due to the proposed common ancestry in the old testament. Arabs were also known for preserving manuscripts where the Romans were known for defiling the Jewish temples and scrolls. Josephus' antiquities could have passed through Arab hands and been forged by a well meaning Arab convert to Christianity.

Wiki Excerpt
Van Voorst also states that calling Christians a "tribe" would have been very out of character for a Christian scribe, while Josephus has used it to refer both to Jewish and Christian groups.

Comment:
This comes down the the word "church" which is exactly the same word as "tribe" really, it means simply "a group of people" (Ecclesia). Even an angry mob of unbelievers in the new testament is called a "church"....

It is modern Christianity and theology that has put spin on these words.

They take Ecclesia as to mean only "the church of God" where contextually Ecclesia is used in the Bible to ALSO mean a simple mob or tribe of people.

How can modern theologians detect a forgery when their modern understanding of biblical words are far removed from legitimate first century biblical meaning.

In other words, religiosity has gotten the better of their ability to discern these ancient truths. Just as modern religiosity clouds the fundamental Christian's ability to even live the aesthetic and compassionate life depicted by the Jesus story.

You cannot interpret the Bible or the word of Josephus if you have a hard mindset on exalting above all else hateful laws given by a flat earth God. You are interpreting your own private meaning to force and squish the biblical literature into something that is perfect when it is not.