Intelligent Christianity, Part 3/7: Josephus and the Talmud

[satinhooks]

intelligent christianity?

really?... really?

[drjackflash]

Choosing to ignore evidence on the sheer basis of skepticism does not constitute that the evidence is false.

[hebrewmatrix]

The word Christian Derive from the word Christos and its a Greek word--To call your self a Christian is to say your Nationality is Greek and you as a Greek person beleive in a Savior......Why everyone perfer to call themself a Christian if there are not even Greek by nationality and race...it makes no sense

[Yazzarh]

My gosh, the other dude could've just quoted the Antiquites (book 20) at you and shut you up within 30 seconds, instead of drawing it out for nearly 10 minutes...

[silverfox2358]

you didn't mention jesus barabbus or the Islamic version of jesus

[ElasticGiraffe]

I haven't read The Jesus Mysteries, as I think you called it. But a very popular spokesman for the pro-historicity position is the agnostic-turned-Christian apologist, Josh McDowell. If you want a work to balance out the book you recommended, I would recommend McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict. It is an exhaustive work on the subject if I remember correctly. It's been awhile since I picked it up. :)

[ElasticGiraffe]

This guy doesn't know his sources very well. I would like to point out a couple of things, though.

Jesus was indeed a Nazar-ene, someone from Nazareth. He was not, however, a Nazar-ite, a person who had taken the Nazarite vow detailed in Numbers 6. I think you might have confused the two. Second, crucifixion was considered a form of hanging. The cause of death was asphyxiation. Paul makes this clear when he quotes Deuteronomy 21.23 in Galatians 3.13 about the cursedness of the man who...

[ElasticGiraffe]

is killed by hanging on a tree. Third, Yeshua or Yehoshua is the Hebrew equivalent of Iesous (in the New Testament Greek), Joshua, and Jesus. Its meaning is "The LORD is salvation." They aren't different names. Another example is the Hebrew name Yaaqob, roughly translated "heel grabber" (from the account of his twin birth in Genesis), can be rendered either Jacob or James. Same name, though. I'd have to take a close look at the disciples part, but I don't find it to be a very strong objection.

[rebryant66]

Well theres a Lake and at the bottom are all our friends, they can't swim cause they're dead.

Those lyrics remind me of how this interview is going.

Band: Brand New

Song: At The Bottom

Album: Daisy

[dooom560]

God died....

[Boxcutter7]

Plus even if that man named Jesus did exist & was crucified, it doesn't mean he really was the son of god; does not mean that christianity is correct. In history class in high school, I remember the history book talking about Jesus as a man that existed. Many atheists & people of nonchristian faiths recognize Jesus as a "good man" that existed.

[elldazzy]

If jesus died at 30, josephus was born 7 years later and died at 100 ad. Even if he did write about him, it would have been based on hear say, just like the rest of the bible.

[Godshoulddie]

The best thing to think on is Philo (20 BCE - 50 CE) who lived through the time period of Jesus' life, wrote EXTENSIVELY about the Jews, including the Essenes and yet somehow missed significant events such as the massacre of the innocents at Jesus birth, the great wandering star, the visit of foreign kings at this birth, the temple tulmult and so on including the Jewish prophets actually rising from their graves and walking in the streets of Jerusalem. Somehow this scholar just missed all of it.

[TheCrappyPhilosopher]

This guy should listen to what he's saying: god came down to Earth... and the only independent evidence for this is an interpolated passage in Josephus and a passage in the Talmud, if you distort it enough.

Jesus lived among us, and we don't know for sure what he said or what he did, or if he even existed at all (though I think he did).

Really? Is that what you would expect from the creator of the universe?

[johnnythesailorman]

wow you really make me wanna convert. i will finally have an excuse to be a dick :-D

[adrenacrumb]

i should have watched all of this before saying that my bad man, well done.

[adrenacrumb]

that guy is nuts for sure trying to say that was the original quote from josephus, no scholar accepts that as real and really have no basis for accepting any of it at all.

[Godshoulddie]

The interesting point, however, is that Eusebius said that this amazing paragraph always existed in the Annals EVEN THOUGH church fathers such as Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Orgen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century - who knew Jeosphus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage.

[Godshoulddie]

Sorry, Eusebius said that it always existed in the Antiquities of the Jews, not the Annals...that's Tacitus, another apolotard favorite.

[adrenacrumb]

that first josephus quote only came to us in 325AD through the churchfather eusebius. no christian before him mentions that passage even though a few mention the other one although that probably isn't the same jesus christ. but both of those josephus quotes come to us only through christian hands. the original he wrote of those in 90AD were lost.

[Godshoulddie]

Indeed, adrenacrumb. The first appearence of the Testimonium appears in Demonstratio Evangelica by Eusebius in 325ad.

[rolynstone48]

Poor Christians - forever quoting from the dead letter of their dogma , and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

[WIzDum82]

"Hanged,shouldn't it say crucified?" Wow, isn't az. being alittle DISINGENUOUS here. The BIBLE says that Jesus was both crucified & "hanged". Acts 5:30 " The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. " Wow it says a tree & not a cross, maybe this is a different Jesus also. Crucified = Hanged & Tree = Cross no need to mince words to show our ideas az. the proof is still on the BELIEVER.

[Godshoulddie]

No, it would be YOU that is being disingenuous.

On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out in front of him for forty days, saying: 'He is going to be stoned, because he practised sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover.

from the Baylonian Talmud.

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- I don't think you get what I was saying. The things I pointed out are correct & az. was incorrect in pointing them out. He didn't need to stoop to that level, for he was tearing Joe apart, but in stooping to the point that he is saying whether or not the word hanged or whether the bible says Jesus was a Nazarene or not took away from his arguement. Why, b/c he was wrong on those points. That's why I say he was being disingenuous. BTW, I don't think this Yeshu is/was Jesus of the bible.

[Godshoulddie]

Well, I disagree. Saying that the Jesus of the bible was CRUCIFIED and not HANGED is, in fact, correct. Your attempt to equate "hanged on a tree" and "crucifixtion" doesn't take away from the point HE made regarding the Yeshu from the Talmud being hanged and Jesus' death. Hanged ON a tree still indicates a crucifixtion rather than a hanging FROM a tree, yes? Further, as I pointed out, Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM, according to the Bible. This hardly makes him a NAZARENE.

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- Yes, it is CORRECT say Jesus was crucified, BUT it is also CORRECT to say he was hanged/hung. Why, b/c the bible says he was "hanged" and you can't deny that. Yes, Jesus was born it Bethlehem and your right, thats NOT what makes him a nazarene. What makes him a nazarene is the FACT that he lived in Nazareth, that why I gave the vs.Matt.2:23 to show that the bible actually call Jesus a nazarene. Why was he called a nazarene, b/c he lived there. Simple enough right??

[Godshoulddie]

Acts says "hanged on a tree". This in no way equates to the tale told of Yeshu in the Babylonian Talmud. Trying to equate the two is what makes YOU disingenuous.

On the Nazarene. No, what makes Jesus a Nazarene is the author of Mathews attempt to fullfill some OT prophecy. What makes you "of" something, such as Jesus OF is where you were born...thus, Jesus would properly be Jesus OF Bethlehem, if Mathew is to be believed as to his birthplace.

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- What az. was doing by his overlaying the text "Hanged,shouldn't it say crucified" is try to imply that this Yeshu couldn't be the biblical Jesus b/c the biblical Jesus was crucified & not hanged. That can not be used as proof they are not the same b/c the BIBLE also says that the biblical Jesus was hanged. What is so hard to understand about this? It does matter that it said hanged, it would have no bearing on whether this Yeshu is or is not the biblical Jesus. That's all I'm saying. CONT

[Godshoulddie]

What's difficult to understand is how you try to equate "hanged on a tree" with a hanging. See, hanged on a tree DOES equate with a crucifixtion. A HANGING, however, implies a noose and rope motif. Nevertheless, I will say that AZ could have done better to destroy this r-tard point as it is better to point out that the Talmud speaks of a FORTY DAY period before the Yeshu is STONED and HANGED. As well, the Yeshu in question also had the five followers I listed so there is NO way this is Jesus.

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- O.k I see what you are saying about the "hanged" it makes sense when viewed in that manner, although it doesn't need to be specific. Examples. (Judas) Matt,27:5 "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and HANGED himself." (Thief) Luke23:39 "And one of the malefactors which were HANGED railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us." And agree with the rest of your point on the better way,thats why I thought az didnt need this "hanged".

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- The bible says Jesus was a nazarene, you say he wasn't based on where he was born, thats your criteria inwhich you base your assumption. Now the bible uses a diff. criteria inwhich it basis whether or not Jesus was a nazarene, and that is that he lived in Nazareth. Say Joe was born in Wash.D.C., but lives in N.Y, is he a Washingtonian or a New Yoker, Lol. I'm sure you will get this wrong.

[Godshoulddie]

Now, on this point. We aren't talking about modern times or modern terminology. Instead we are speaking of bronze age times where a persons birth determined their "last name". Again, Jesus OF Nazereth would imply to a bronze age person that Jesus was BORN in Nazereth, which, of course, is not true.

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- Now, on this point I can't understand where you are coming from. In modern terminology I quess you see my point where someone born in D.C. & lived in N.Y. would be a New Yorker. So, why can't this apply to bronze age times ? I'm sure you consider the bible a bronze age times book and in Matt.2:23 it uses the modern terminology of today. So, how can you say they didn't use it that way when they did?

[Godshoulddie]

Because in that time period, to indicate Jesus OF Nazareth was to indicate a place of birth. It simply WAS. In the same manner that one would refer to yourself as Jesus son of Joseph. Understand? It is, as you said before, simple. In the time period in question, people did not have last names. Indeed, last names came about from this tradition. For instance, having the last name NOW of smith indicates that in the past a person in your lineage WAS a smith. Having the last name NOW of Abrahamson...

[Godshoulddie]

...indicates that at some point in the past an acestor of yours was referred to as Abrahams' son...get it?

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- I get what your saying,but it doesn't hold true.We have a passage that is written in the time period in question.That passage is Matt.2:23 "And he came and dwelt (LIVED) in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,He shall be called a Nazarene." This passage from that time period shows that Jesus was called a nazarene b/c he LIVED & was raised in Nazareth.What you are saying ignores what this vs. is saying.Why do they call him Jesus of Nazareth?

[Godshoulddie]

No. What you have is exactly what I already said. That is a bullshit attempt to fulfill OT prophecy. They call him Jesus of Nazareth to fulfill this prophecy in their dead messiah as the gospels were written after the fact, of course.

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- Yeah, I've heard that lame BS about them wrighting that in to make Jesus look like the one who would fulfill a prophecy. That is what is the BS, why b/c what PROPHECY is it suppose to fulfill, do you know of such a prophecy,I sure don't. Therefore your arguement doesn't make sense again.

[Godshoulddie]

Mathew was trying to link Jesus to the line of David in the following Isa 4:2, 11:1, Jer 23:5, Zech 3:8, 6:12. Now, we can also begin the argument that NONE of these have ANYTHING to do with Nazareth but this was where mathew was coming from in his attempt to fulfill that which was "spoken of by the prophets".

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- I looked those vs.up and see nothing that would suggest that the BRANCH had to come from Nazareth or would be called a nazarene.

[Godshoulddie]

Nor did I say they did. However, if you google "Mathew and Old Testament prophecy" all of these passages come up in relation to Mathews attempt to link Nazareth to Jesus in order to fulfill these prophecies.

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- You did suggest hower that this vs. were the core of what Matthew was linking to Jesus being a nazarene. That is just speculation and the imagination of man's mind, it can't be proven so to speak. Therefore the site you offered is one man's opinion.

[Godshoulddie]

Ok, well since you are determined to be a fucking retard here I have nothing more to say. When I suggest actually doing some research and seeing that website after CHRISTIAN website including the Catholic encyclopedia list the passages I listed as Mathews basis for it being important that Jesus be a Nazarene and you still try to come back with "well, that's one mans opinion" then you can lick my ass and suck on my balls.

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- Yes, you proved only that if someone doesn'r agree w/ your BS no matter how stupid it sounds they a *%#@* , great. The fact is az. said the bible doesn't describe Jesus as a nazarene, he was wrong. The bible clearly calls him a nazarene & theres no disputing that. You may disagree whether he was or not, but you CAN"T DISAGREE w/ whether the BIBLE says he was or not when it says he is/was. Now you might if you just don't know or you might if you know ,but you just like being stupid. SORRY!

[Godshoulddie]

Sorry, did you want to lick my ass or suck on my balls or go for both?

[Godshoulddie]

Sorry, did you want to lick my ass, suck on my balls or both?

[johnnythesailorman]

matthew5:28 "I tell you that anyone who i angry with their brother will be subject to judgement... but anyone who says you fool will be in danger of hells fire" -The Late J.C.

i shall see you in hell my freind :-D

[johnnythesailorman]

why did you remove the comment from the board? is it because of the terrible grammar or the fact that you pretty much said it was okay to sin because you are forgiven? you even deleted the comment where you called him a dumbass. i thought jesus said to let your good works be a shining example for all to see. and i don't expect you to be perfect. i expect you to not be a dick and a hypocrite. maybe you'd be a more effective evangelizer if you where a little more humble.

[WIzDum82]

jts- I removed those comments b/c after you replied to me and I thought the comments were indeed a bad example to set,therefore I repented & removed them. I shouldn't have called Gsd. a dumbass no matter how crude a comment he made to me.Sorry to Gsd. for calling him a name and to you for having to view it.I do wonder why you would think I was the one being a dick in the light of the way Gsd spoke to me just b/c he knew I was right & he was wrong.Just b/c he not a believer doesn't make it ok.

[johnnythesailorman]

are you guilty because of the bad example or because of the way talked to him? it says in the bible not to take revenge on people but to let god handle the justice even when its just someone being a dick to you on youtube, so you're still wrong, turn the other cheek and sin no more.

[WIzDum82]

jts- Yes,I was wrong for calling Gsd a dumbass,just he was wrong for saying the perverted stuff he said, and as you are wrong for calling me a dick,so what. I have said I was wrong, apologized, removed the comment thereby repenting of my actions. Then if God be willing,he will/can forgive for any wrong doing,that is my HOPE.I have a HOPE that God will forgive me of ALL of my sins,what about you?

[johnnythesailorman]

i was looking back, and you're right godshoulddie is a prick, he will probably die freindless sad and alone. but when i was a christian i wouldn't have even kept a conversation going that long with him. jesus said don't cast perls before swine. as for god, he has given no proof of his existance same with allah vishnu zeus or odin. cutting to the chase, here's the anti-pascals wager, if there is no god you will have wasted thre only life you will ever get worshiping an imaginary deity.

[WIzDum82]

jts- Even though Gsd was refusing to understand what I was saying & then said things he said,I'm not mad at him and have even prayed for him a couple of times since then,Iwish him well. I also am not worried about living my life worshipping an imaginary deity.What harm has or could it do me.I believe that it makes me better off and mine you that I only HOPE for salvation through God's mercy & grace,I don't think any are guaranteed salvation by their works.Take care.

[johnnythesailorman]

okay if you were'nt good enough and god sends you to hell because you misinterpreted something you will be fine with that? like if he sends you to hell for wearing a hat or having long hair which are forbidden in the new testament i might add. or by answering a fool or not answering a fool according to his foolishness like in proverbs (if you are doing one you are not doing the other) it is that kind of mental torture that made me an atheist....cont

[johnnythesailorman]

well HELPED make me an atheist. you don't know if god will decide to send you to hell or heaven. it is entirely out of your hands so you can be an absolute saint following the bible to the letter and it all still comes down to gods grace, whaether or not he feels like letting you in. there is nothing you can do to save yourself. even if that god was real i could never love him because he is a jerk. i could obey him out of fear but thats a far cry from actual love....

[Godshoulddie]

Try not to make WizDum too much of a martyr. We had a confrontation as happens on youtube. I put forth evidence both from his own holy book and from multiple sources including the Catholic Encyclopedia that showed where the link to the "Nazarene" came from. WizDum came back with "well, that's one mans' opinion". If he's not even going to be bothered to investigate information, then frankly he can fuck off.

[johnnythesailorman]

dude i totally agree with you that he can fuck off if he doesnt want to consider the facts, but 1 of us has to "be the better man". i believe that atheists have the same obligation that christians do to set a good example for how humans should treat one another. if we're always rude to people that don't think like us we will be judged as such & people will be more likely to write us off as hateful godless heathens and just ignore what we have to say completely negating our reason for saying it.

[Godshoulddie]

Well, first I would say go back and reread my posts. For most of them I simply argued my position, stating facts and putting forth evidence. But, again, he refused to examine the evidence, dismissing it out of hand. Second, I have had a number of conversations with youtube christians over years of being on youtube (I have other accounts). After years of having any number of youtube christians saying "nuh uh" over and over, I have simply come to the point of dismissing them in such a manner...

[Godshoulddie]

...when they simply refuse to examine the evidence I present. In part of our conversation, for instance, over the Babylonian Talmud, we went back and forth over evidence presented and he conceeded that it was simply not possible that the Yeshua presented there to be the same as the one presented in the bible. This indicated he looked at the evidence I presented. Fine. But, on the nazarene point he wouldn't even examine it and/or present evidence of his own. So, I got mad and bid him adieu.

[johnnythesailorman]

they are a stubborn bunch. it's almost enough to make ya wonder why we even bother in the first place. but i still think that we should always let them be the asshole first so we can say, "very christian of you." few things satisfy me more in an arguement than using their own dogma against them. but if they insist on thinking that they won, let them. the green thumbs up on your comments will everyone know who the real victor is.

[Godshoulddie]

Fair enough. I feel that I am willing to be fair and discuss a topic up to the point where the other side refuses to even examine evidence. At that point I have no more time for them. As for the "lick my ass and suck my balls" comment...well, what can I say? I'm human...I get mad...I react. All I'm trying to say is try not to make him out to be a martyr at the hands of cruel prick GSD.

[johnnythesailorman]

martyrdom was not what i was exactly goin for. either way remember the love.

[johnnythesailorman]

as for wasting your life. you will never know the fun of having a threesome, doing mushrooms, formulating your own ideas, being freinds with gays, or spending sunday at the lake drinkin beer and wakeboarding instead of in a building trying to appease a bloodthirsty invisible sky monster who will destroy you for not loving and obeying him. watch the edward current video called "a christian meets the invisble pink unicorn" to get the full scope of what i am trying to say.

[WIzDum82]

jts-First I would like to say that I've actually have done 95% of what you've mention as things I would never know the fun of doing, at the river I cowarded out on the wakeboarding.I wasn't always a believer & even for years when I thought I was I still missed up ALL THE TIME. That's why I need Christ,a redeemer that would pay for my sins that I may be forgiven.I also believe that the unsaved will DIE not live throughout eternity in torture, the wages of sin is indeed DEATH.

[johnnythesailorman]

okay well now you can't do those things anymore and you know those things are fun, god made them fun, and then makes us feel bad and punishes us for enjoying them. living as a christian you don't get to live life to its fullest you are always trying to appease this unpleasable jerk in the sky who wont even show himself to let you know you're doing a good job.and y does there have to be a blood sacrifice for the merciful, all loving, holiest of holy god to forgive us?

[WIzDum82]

jts- You're correct,I can't do those things anymore.Yes,they were fun when I did them,but looking back at it I am ashamed of most of it.They are the things of this world the desire of the flesh.When God comes into ones life he turns them from the ways of the world and towards the ways of the spirit.Blood sacrifice is inshort the given of life.God had to give his life inorder to redeem the lives of those that he chose to save from death.We in turn give ours by given up the desires of this world.

[johnnythesailorman]

those he chose to save from death? does that mean that the other people where chosen for destruction? that is the sickest most messed up thing i have ever heard of. if that is the case than as far as i'm concerned Satan is the good guy! btw did you watch the edward current video where the christian meets the invisible pink unicorn?

[WIzDum82]

jts-"does that mean that the other people where chosen for destruction?" Yes,in Rom.9:21-23"Hath not the potter power over the clay,of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour,and another unto dishonour?What if God,willing to shew his wrath,and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy,which he had afore prepared unto glory"

[WIzDum82]

jts- " did you watch the edward current video" Yes,I thought it was funny,as is most of his vids. Interestingly though,was the quote:"I expect death to be nothingness and,for removing me from all possible fears of death,I am thankful to atheism."-Issac Asimov, Well ,if Mr. Asimov would've read his bible,mainly Ecc.9:10"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do,do it with thy might;FOR THERE IS NO work,nor device,nor knowledge,nor wisdom,IN THE GRAVE,whither thou goest." he would've already knew that.

[johnnythesailorman]

well sir your god is a total dick. but you are not. and i wish you all the best. take care.

[Godshoulddie]

The site I suggest as best would be Nazareth and the branch. It does a very good job of detailing Mathews attempt to link these things up.

[WIzDum82]

Gsd- "They call him Jesus of Nazareth to fulfill " Even the Govenor of the area called him Jesus of Nazareth. The one who had authority over the land reconized him before he died to be from Nazareth.

John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

[Godshoulddie]

Wizdum, your constant harping on this means what? First he's born in Bethlehem but then is called a Nazarene by the writers of the gospels and this proves fucking what? Please explain.

[Godshoulddie]

So we see that this YESHU was first STONED then HANGED. Now, trying to say that the phrase "hanged on a tree" somehow then relates to this YESHU whose period of trial was FORTY DAYS, not the OVERNIGHT trial of Jesus is what makes you completely DISINGNEUOUS.

[Godshoulddie]

Further, if you read on in the Babylonian Talmud, this Yeshu is said to have FIVE disciples: Mitai, Nicai, Nazere, Buni and Todah. None of these names, of course, match ANY of the disciples described in the Bible.

[WIzDum82]

"The Jesus described in the BIBLE was NOT a Nazarine"

What BIBLE is az. reading? Jesus is referred to as Jesus of Nazareth thoughout the BIBLE. Oh, I forgot az, thinks that being a Nazarene doesn't mean you are "of Nazareth" I refer back to Matt.2:23 "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be FULFILLED which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" Jesus was a Nazarene b/c he lived in Nazareth, that simple.

[Godshoulddie]

Whoops...born in Bethlehem, wasn't he?

Mathew 2:1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod

[WIzDum82]

Actually says: "Yeshu the Nazarine" Nazarine does NOT mean "of Nazareth"

Matt.2:23 "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." According to scripture the fact that Jesus lived in Nazareth made him a Nazarene.

[99minerkc]

If there's such strong evidence that Jesus DID NOT even exist, why aren't more historians writing books and speaking out on it? Do the theists have a method of blocking such information to come out? Seems like a lot more agree Jesus existed but that he wasn't divine! If he didn't exist, I would LOVE for it to be made well known!!

[ReddmanDGZ]

Unfortunately, science doesn't work like that. The burden of proof is on those who make the extraordinary claim.

Logic dictates that one cannot prove a negative; For all we know, there's a teapot in orbit around the sun, but we really would have a hard time proving that.

Also If i was to make a scientific claim, like... I have a near zero point cold fusion energy system... but they have to prove that it doesn't exist. Something like that would be torn apart in peer review.

[99minerkc]

Hmm... a tea pot in orbit? I hope some tea spills out of it and it rains tea into my cup! Then I could say " my cup runith over with tea!" o.O

Thanks for your response-points taken! : )

[99minerkc]

I can't hear both guys which takes away from the interview. : (

[thefakeyeti]

I wish there wer a add on to wow that would allow me to read the sub titles ON the wow screen while I watch this :P

[NoNcOnFoRMiSt26]

Is anyone else not hearing the christian guy in this video? I can hear azsuperman perfectly fine, but all I hear when the other guy talks is a very faint sound. I could hear the christian on part two, but not anymore.

[Relativisticism]

I found the book, it's called "Losing faith in faith"

[Relativisticism]

I read somewhere that there is no actual account that romans crucified anyone on crosses. I know they hung them but there is no written account outside the bible about hanging from a cross.

[durelino]

I suck at history, but what about the story the of spartacus. the rebelion... or it is just a story and a external account of crucifying?

[Relativisticism]

The book I was referring to mentioned that the word cross is a mistranslation of another word that just meant sharpened pole. They would thrust the person onto the pole and their body would slowly pierce itself as gravity pulled the body down. No mention of nails or rope or a T shaped object.

[PerfectionZinc]

Lmao two dumbasses trying to act like they are historians....its hilarious :)

[RadarKat73080]

I never read that Josephus acknowledge Jesus or say that he rose from the dead. Just that he wrote about James, the brother of Jesus; who was called Christ.

[WayOfTheBastard]

Josehpus has an interpolation.

[yancur]

Typical Christian this Joe. He pulls out of his ass several authors to intimidate his opponent by his "knowledge" of ancient historian and when the opponent doesn't succumb to this trickery, he retreats to the classical pose "what would it take for you to believe Jesus existed?"

THAT'S NOT THE GODDAMN QUESTION !

[brutus149]

5:36

You see, "hanged" up on a cross apologist 1 - AZ 0.

Checkmate

[HonestDiscussioner]

Meh, they have Tacitus so I think there was a historical Jesus, or at least there isn't "no evidence". The arguments against Tacitus I think are relatively weak, but all Tactitus says is that there was a guy named Jesus who was crucified, no reference to any supernatural things.

[azsuperman01]

Tacitus would not have had any knowledge of whether or not Jesus lived. He was born long after anyone who possibly could have seen Jesus had already died. He's just repeating stories.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Mig and others argue he was probably referencing Roman records of the crucifixion and that he didn't make a habit of repeating stories as history.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Ah . . he does it later. Still, a dishonest tactic in my opinion. Looking forward to Talmud.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa . . . whoa. This guy calls his show "Intelligent Christianity" and he doesn't even know that AT BEST Josephus was a Christian Interpolation?

That's apologetics 101, admit Josephus was forged but quickly clarify it was only an "interpolation", an embellishment.

Is this guy on youtube? I have a feeling he needs pwning.

[deathweaselx86]

I'd say that this interview is a hefty pwn in and of itself.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Quite right . . . but this is one his own podcast. If he's on youtube he needs to be pwned. I wasn't trying to imply az didn't pwn him. Indeed he has thus far, though I've only seen up to part four. If it follows like is has I'll bet this guy felt embarrassed after the show.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Woohoo! Thanks for uploading this before I went to bed.