Alrighty, time to continue. I assume you haven't responded to my opening post yet from either there wasn't much to argue about, or you just haven't read it.  Whatever the case, I wanted to make a final point before moving onto my second inspiration.

 I wanted to add a few more things regarding science and the origins of religion. Some men have suggested that religion itself may be part of an evolutionary process, men such as Edward O. Wilson in his “On Human Nature,” and Steven Pinker with his hypothesis on “mental modules.”  Basically, if group cohesion is strengthened by common belief in the supernatural, then natural selection will produce, in the most successful human groups, an unreasoning tendency to commit to the supernatural. I have no problem with this. I know a lot of theists believe that the reason the human race has so many different religions and beliefs are because of our spirit or soul. But even I doubt that. I think it’s rather because of our highly advanced brains, which has the ability to “think” beyond the physical and ponder about the spiritual, or if there is a spiritual. Overall, of course we humans have an evolutionary predisposition to accept the divine. That’s how God knew it was time to endow us with the souls that humans believe, as a matter of Faith, serve to complete the physical and spiritual reality of human nature. Wilson and Pinker’s evolutionary forces only become one more tool in the hands of the Almighty.

To finish this section on science: a biologically static world would leave God’s creatures with neither freedom nor the independence required to exercise that freedom. In biological terms, evolution is the only way God or the Creator could have made us the creatures we are—free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices.

Ok, the second thing that inspires me to believe is the historian evidence for Christ. Now, before you go Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier or even your co-rational friend Rook Hawkins on me, I'm well aware of their arguments. I see some good points made, but overall their arguments just sound fairly lame. I can't buy into them because the other side makes better "logical" sense. We can go into that. We could talk about Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, Lucian, and the few other suposive outside sources on Christ, if you'd like. Sounds like fun. Overall, the fact that the Church exists (and when I say Church I am refering more-so to Orthodox Christianity, anotherwords The Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches, and not Protestants. In fact, whenever I say "Chruch" I always mean the ancients and not the fundamental evangelicals of today. I'm not very fond of most Protestant ideas, some are so ridiculous and even cold hearted it's hard to stomach. But anyway), so yes, the fact that the Church exists to me makes it clear that Christ also did, just as Mahammad and Islam, just as  Buddha and Buddhism, or Charles Taze Russel and Jehova Witness, and Joseph Smith and the Mormons (although the last two slide off from Christianity, but I think you get the picture). Now, of course I know this doesn't prove Jesus's existence, but I find it hard to swallow that it just popped up out of nowhere. Even if there is no god, and Christianity is wrong, I am still convinced that a man called the Christ existed and his followers continued his teachings after his death. But yes, over all, the fact of the Church's existence, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and the non-Christian sources inspire me to believe in Christianity, even though as of now I don't attend Church, and have a luke-warm Faith. So Kelly, you better strike me quickly before my Faith lights up again

Then there is the Bible, what an amazing book. I know, I know, it's full of contradictions. And yes, there ARE contradictions in the Bible. There ARE mistakes in the Bible. What would you expect from a work of MEN? That's right, when it comes to the Bible, I do not believe every jot and tittle is from the hand of God, or that God robotically controlled the biblical authors. It is inspired by God, not written by Him/Her Men wrote what they witnessed, what they believed, and what they did. Therefore, the message of the Bible I think is from God, not every bit of text.

And regarding the contradictions within Holy Scripture, I mean BIG WHOOP! They pose no problem for me. Actually some of them put forth by atheists are flat out ridiculous and easily explained, for example when Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, but later, while on trial he asks the man who strikes him: "if I have done evil, then your punishment is just. If not, why do you hit me?" Point is, do not be so easily prone to violence. But there IS a time to defend yourself, to fight back, to do what is right and what is just. Many contradictions are easily explained, some are not, but again what would you expect from a work of men?

What about miracles in the Bible? What do I think of that, especially how I regard science to such a high level? Well, any Being worthy of the name “God” has to be capable of miracles. Although miracles may simply, but amazingly be God altering or bending the laws of physics, or perhaps something else. In the case of the latter, what can science say about miracles? The answer is simply nothing.  By definition, the miraculous is beyond explanation, beyond our understanding, beyond science. This doesn’t mean miracles do not occur. The key doctrine in Christianity is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense. As I’m sure you’re aware, there is the matter of Jesus’ Y-chromosome to account for. But THAT is the point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense. They’re specific acts of God, designed in most cases to get a message across. Their rarity is what makes them remarkable.

When all is said and done, the Bible still inspires me to believe.

Then there is the case of visions, especially visions of Mary, the ones approved by the Church. We can get into this too. Although I know it in no way proves God's existence, not a chance. They may all be hallucinations. I've studied them, some I decline, but many do inspire me, especially when more than one person sees a vision at the same time and for the same reason.

There are some things about Christianity I do not admire or like. I can list them if you'd like. But I'm not going to call the religion "evil." I think it has done wonders for the world.

The final inspiration is my own life and what God has done, or did. I've had a few "God highs" and they were the most beautiful feelings I've ever experienced. But perhaps that's all they were, "feelings" and nothing more. I do not know. And this is something we could also get into, but let's take it one step at a time. I'll be awaiting your response to my paragraphs above. I apologize if I take a little too long in responding back. I'm a slow typer, and I have extreme OCD so getting the right words is something I always hope to do, and get frustrated intensively when I fail. While I'm at work I write out normally what I want to say on my laptop, then come home and copy and paste it for speed.

P.S. Just to let you know, frankly, I do not care what you are or what you believe. I'm not a preacher, nor am I going to preach to YOU to accept Christianity. I firmly believe that anyone seeking Truth, will find that Truth, no matter what it is. So basically, I'm not telling you to believe in God. Just wanted you to realize that, since you deal with hundreds of theists all the time who probably try to get you to believe, and you just blow them all away.

peace

Thanks for taking the time to get your views down, I'm short on time today so forgive me in advance for simply asking a few questions that get you thinking differently, as opposed to taking each argument and dissecting it.  Answer seriously or you get whipped in my dungeon.

Do you think that there is a bias that comes from the assumption that there had to have been some sort of creator?

In other words, you as a believer start at the beginning, and you add something that is similar in nature to yourself. From that point, nature, the universe, and everything falls into that perspective. The problem then becomes that you are adding more then what we know to exist. We know that this universe exists, but we don't know that a god exists.

Would you agree that starting from the assumption that a god exists create a bias?

On the other side, I start with no bias. I start with what we know to exist and work from there. I'm not adding anything, and I'm not taking away anything. Since I'm only dealing with what is, there is no bias.

What sort of difference in evidence is there in believing god set the universe in motion, and believing that Snarfwidgets created a god that in turn set the universe in motion?  What would you say to me if I agreed your god existed and then said that it's most likely that god was created by Snarfwidgets? (I could even use some of your own arguments to make my case)

The last one on one debate that was hosted in this forum had formal rules and judges, however I would like for us to view this more as a discussion, a back and forth, with no time constraint.  I'm not going anywhere, I hope you choose to stay and converse until your "session" is complete.

"I've gots ta git B-to-tha-izzack ta plott'n mah nefarious pizzle ta destroy tha public image of atheists n bitchez."

I've never been much of a milkshake fan. I prefer hot fudge sundae's with peanut butter sauce and homemade whipped cream, along with a Reeses Peanut Butter Cup Ice Cream Pie (I make that from scratch from time to time, well except of course for the candy part) Oh and in the fall, NOTHING beats homemade apple crisp with fresh cinnamon whipped cream!!!!!! *pants*  It's my fav!!!!

--Sons of the gods, today we shall die, open Valhalla's door,
Let the battle begin, with swords in the wind, Hail Gods of War!-- Manowar

lol, no I do not. I listen to classical and melodic/power/thrash metal. I'm also a writer and a musician. And yes, at some times a total airhead and ditz!!   But enough about me.

Kelly is uber busy this week, you didn't scare her off.  She'll be back.

I just want to say, that sometimes I can relate to why you call Theists "irrational," some of them that is, not all. I'm SO FIRED up right now from another debate I'm having with a self-righteous theist about certain issues. UUGGGHHH!!!  the annoyance of what the individual is saying, and his insulting me has driven me to anger today!

    *takes deep breath*  LOL.  Ok,  I feel better now, just needed to vent.

Hello, it seems you don't wish to discuss anything, since you haven't gotten back to the answers I gave you regarding your questions. That's alright, I will believe that you are busy   But I guess I will end it myself, cause I'm just getting this feeling this discision will go nowhere. If I've judged incorrectly, then I'm sorry.  I will end to by saying just a few things for perhaps you and anyone else who reads it to think about, since the RRS normally bashes ideas such as Christ's existence and the Gospels, etc.  First off I shall begin with Christian/Pagan copycat ideas:  A few things to keep in mind regarding Christianity being a copycat religion: I've seen videos on Youtube which mention an inscription in the Vatican of "He who will not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." And said that this is inscribed on the remains of the temple the Vatican was built on, one dedicated to the God Mithras.  First of all, those are the words of Christ, not Mithras. There is no ancient document of Mithras saying those words nor any doctrine in Mithraism having a likening to the sacrament of Holy Communion or the Eucharist. Furthermore, if the Vatican indeed was built over a Mithras temple? So what! That still does not mean that those words were put on the stone while it was a Mithras temple. They could have been written during or after the building of the Vatican, and judging by there being no historical document of Mithras and the Eucharist, I'd say those words were inscribed by Christians.  Others have said: "Picto grams of Isis nursing her miraculously concieved baby Horus became our modern blueprint for images of Mother Mary and Jesus." Lol, oh man, no offense but how ridiculous! First of all, common sense should wipe this away without me even typing a word, but I will Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs, practices, and artifacts totally independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.For example, the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this.  The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.  Thirdly: Well to put this silly notion short, as for the sun disks as the saints halo, I would say that people are grasping at anything to try to destroy the Church by discrediting Jesus.  Now on to probaly the biggest blunder of the December 25 influence. First and foremost, no serious Christian scholar believes Christ was born on December 25. The earliest date celebrated by Christians is January 6'th, that day is still celebrated in some eastern Churches. But lets take a common influence pagans talk about, Mithras and December 25. December 25 was the date chosen by the emperor Aurelian for the dedication of his temple to Sol Invictus, the god called the "Unconquerable Sun." Mithras was closely associated with Sol Invictus; sometimes they are depicted shaking hands, which is how Mithras became associated with Dec. 25. In 336 was when Dec. 25 became a date for Christians, a year before the death of Constantine, the first Roman emperor to embrace Christianity. Befoe his conversion he worshipped Sol Invictus, we know that Constantine made Sunday an offical holiday, even though Christians have been observing it as "the Lord's Day" since the early first century. So it's conceivable Constantine also may have appropriated Dec. 25 for the birthday of Christ. Christian emperors and popes suggested that instead of banning pagan ceremonies that they appropriate them for Christianity.  THIS IS IMPORTANT: When people read into these "Jesus Myth" books and "Christian copycat" writings they ought to make sure the authors have the proper credentials, proper training and depth of knowledge to write authoritatively on these issues, and that they check the sources theses "mythers" are quoting, whether they're relying on anachronistic claims or discredited scholars. The latter happens oh so often.  In a way, the "Jesus Mythers/Christianity Copycats" remind me of Creationist Christians. To say the universe is 10,000 years old is flat out RIDICULOUS, just as these notions that Christ is no different than Mithras. When the present facts are properly analyzed, they show that christianity did not borrow or copy cat ANY pagan religion when regarding specific doctrines. Horus was NOTHING like the man Jesus Christ, neither was Osiris or  Dionysus. Much of the time people see parallels (like a common meal or a "washing away" of one's cleanliness), then quickly jump to conclusions before ever studying the issues at hand.  Depending of which pagan story you read, Attis was not always born of a virgin. In one account saying he was, his mother gave birth to him through a fruit made of blood, hardly a comparison to Christ. Many other accounts are just as strange. Attis...CRUCIFIED! These Mythers have GOT to be kidding right? He was CASTRATED. NONE of the ancient authentic accounts speak of Attis, Krishna, Horus, etc., dying of crucifixtion and between two theives, then rose on the third day. That's reading Christian theology into it. To my knowledge only twentieth century Jesus Mythers claim that.  Sir James Frazer helped introduce the "dying and rising god" theme, implying Christianity was influenced by early pagan myths or Greco-Roman mystery religions in his book "The Golden Bough," published in 1906. A number of scholars in the Tweentieth century adopted Frazer's thesis, and many Jesus Mythers of today use that same book to draw out their arguments. But much of Frazer's work was based on misreading and clearly distorting the evidence.  In modern times his book is rejected by MOST scholars BECAUSE of the evidence we have today. Both religious and NON-RELIGIOUS disregard the silly belief that the death and resurection of Christ is a copycat, because there's no evidence to prove it. In the words of a non-Christian named T.N.D. Mettinger, a senior Swedish scholar, in his book "The Riddle of Resurrection:"  "There is NO evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods as vicarious suffering for sins" and "The death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions."  Thomas Boslooper, a liberal professor who wrote a book on the virgin birth, although he rejects its historicity, nevertheless scoffed at the suggestion that it was derived from pagan myths: "Contemporary writers invariably use only secondary sources to verify such claims. The scholars whose judgment they accept rarely produced or quoted the primary sources. The literature of the old German Religiongeschichtliche schule, which produced this conclusion and which has become the authority for contemporary scholars who wish to prepetrate the notion that the virgin birth in the New Testament has a non-Christian source, is characterized by brief word, phrase, and sentence quotations that have been lifted out of context or incorrectly translated and used to support preconceived theories. Sweeping generalizations based on questionable evidence have become dogmatic conclusions that cannot be substantiated on the basis of careful investigation."  That's merely two examples out of many.
   The pagan gods had no direct parallels to the Christ of Christianity. I see no evidence in any ancient document, especially those preceeding Christianity showing any direct parallel to Christ. Not of Attis of Asia Minor, or of Adonis of Syria, Osiris of Egypt; Mithra the Persian god or Mithras the mystery religion of Rome (a variety of religious movements from the eastern Mediterranean that flourished in the early Roman Empire. Those initiated into them were sworn to secrecy, held sacred rites, shared a common meal, had a special sanctuary, etc.),  or the greek god Dionysus, also known as Bacchus, the Hindu god Krishna, or Horus of ancient Egypt. None.  And this Kelly, is why I cannot dismiss Christianity as "illogical." I wanted to let go before, but I cannot. I have controled by bias's. While there is no evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt, there's too much evidence to simply dismiss Christianity as nonesense. That would be "illogical" and "irrational."  

Now onto Josephus. Most of the words here are not my own but of scholars such as Robert Van Voorst. 

First of all, Josephus wrote several works designed to explain and justify Rome and the Jews to each other. However, his main two books are mostly a defense of the Romans and an admonition to the Jewish people to live peaceably under them. His two famous works (I own his complete works) are “Jewish War,” which tells the story of the Jewish revolt of 66-70 C.E. He wrote it between 75-80 C.E. and draws on his own experience. His second major work, “Jewish Antiquities,” written in the early 90’s, recounts in twenty books the history of the Jewish people from the creation until the Jewish revolt. Although Josephus saw himself as a life-long loyal Jew, other Jews viewed him as a self-serving traitor. Flavian patronage would guarantee that his books would be copied in the public scriptoria, but after the fall of Rome his books were preserved only by Christians. One of the reasons Christians copied Josephus’s works was that they provided rich information on a few figures in the New Testament, especially John the Baptizer, James the leader of the early Jerusalem church, and Jesus. John is given some extensive treatment in Ant. 18.5.2, 116-19, but Josephus doesn’t mention Jesus briefly. He relates James’s death in Ant. 20.9.1, 200; here he mentions Jesus briefly. Let’s look at it:

“He assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had accused them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”

Ok, now, the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words “the brother of Jesus called Christ” are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found. The passage fits its context well. As for its content, a Christian interpolator would have used laudatory language to describe James and especially Jesus, calling him “the Lord” or something similar. At least, as in the passage to be considered next, he would have used the term “Christ” in an absolute way. Josephus’s words “called Christ” are neutral and descriptive, intended neither to confess nor deny Jesus as the “Christ.” Also, Josephus distinguishes this Jesus from the many others he mentions who had this common name. Moreover, the very reason the identifying phrase “the brother of Jesus called Christ” appears at all is for the further identification of James, whose name was also common.. The use of “Christ” as a title here reflects Jewish usage, and is not typically Christian. Neither is it Roman, for the Romans used “Christ” as a personal name. If one translates the phrase “the so-called/alleged Christ,” it may have a negative tone, but Josephus does not typically use it in a negative way. Another possible translation is “the aforementioned Christ.” However, Josephus does not use it this way either. This would point back to Ant. 18.3.3, 63, where Josephus’s use of the name Christ is hotly debated. The present passage, then, makes authentic mention of Jesus, made all the more certain by its brief, matter-of-fact character. It states that Jesus was also known as “the Messiah/Christ,” and tells us that his brother James was most prominent among those Ananus killed.

Alrighty, know onto the "Golden Paragraph" my friend, which is Ant. 18.3.3, 63-64:

“Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had first loved him did not cease. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, because the divine prophets had prophesied these and myriad other things about him. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared.”

This passage is longer in a Russian translation known as the “Testimonium Slavianum.”

Let us examine this to work out what Josephus is really saying, and what words Christians may have (probably did) added.

The passage calls Jesus “a wise man,” which while complimentary is not what one would expect a Christian interpolation to say, because the label was not at all a common Christian one. Josephus says the same about Solomon ( Ant. 10.11.2, 237), and something similar about John the Baptizer, whom he calls “a good man” ( Ant. 18. 5. 2, 116-9).

That Jesus is said to have been “a worker of amazing deeds” may be a positive statement, but the wording is not likely to come from a Christian. The phrase “amazing deeds” itself is ambiguous; it can also be translated “startling/controversial deeds,” and the whole sentence can be read to mean simply that Jesus had a reputation as a wonder-worker.

According to the passage, Jesus was also “a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure.” Christian writers generally avoided a positive use of the word “pleasure,” with its connotation of “hedonism,” and it is difficult to imagine a Christian scribe using it here about Jesus’ followers.

The statement that Jesus won over “both Jews and Greeks” represents a misunderstanding perhaps among non-Christian like Lucian. However, anyone remotely familiar with the Gospel tradition knows that Jesus himself did not win over “many Greeks” to his movement, even though “Greeks” here means Gentiles. While Jesus had a certain appeal to Gentiles, he certainly did not win them over in the same proportion as Jews, as the “both . . .and” construction and the repeated “many” suggest. This statement naively reads back the situation of Christianity at the end of the first century, when Christianity had many adherents from both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds. Once again, a Christian copyist probably would not make such a mistake.

The sentence “Those who had first loved him did not cease” is characteristically Josephan in style, and points to the continuance of Christianity after the death of its founder. It implies that the love of Jesus’ followers for him, not Jesus’ resurrection appearances to them, was the basis of Christianity’s continuance. This statement does not explicitly endorse the love of Christians for their Christ, as a Christian interpolator might be prone to do.

Finally, calling Christians a “tribe” would also be unusual for a Christian scribe; a follower of a missionizing faith would be uncomfortable with the more narrow, particularistic implications of this word. However, Josephus can use it this way for other groups, both Jewish and Gentile. While “tribe” is an odd way to describe Christians, it does not necessarily carry negative connotations.

So far this passage seems authentic, and many scholars, along with myself (though I’m no scholar) believe it is. But lets move onto the sections that perhaps deal with a Christian interpolator.

In the passage, the clause: “if indeed it is right to call him a man” suggests that Jesus was more than human. This looks like a Christian scribe’s correction of the Christological implications of calling Jesus only a “wise man.” The crux of this problem is the curt sentence “He was the Christ.” Leaving aside the issue of how intelligible this statement would have been to Josephus’s Gentile audience, this sentence looks like a confession of Jesus as Messiah. The order of the Greek words even emphasizes “the Christ.” Note that it does not say something like “he was called Christ,” as in Josephus’s other mention of Jesus. The Josephus who wrote “called Christ” there would be unlikely to say “he was the Christ” here. Josephus elsewhere says little about Messiahs and messianic movements, downplaying them in order to focus (and put the blame for the military debacle) on extremists who incited the revolt of 66-70 C.E., we should NOT expect a positive mention of a messiah here. Moreover, scholarship on the Testimonium sometimes loses sight of how Josephus himself applied tradition messianic ideas. As he intimates in “Jewish War” 3.8.9, 392-408 and says explicitly in 6.6.4, 310-13, he believes that the Biblical prophecies point not to a Jewish messiah, but to the Roman general Vespasian, who became emperor while leading the Roman forces in Judea . Josephus was not about to insult his Flavian patrons by calling Jesus the anointed world ruler!

Lastly, the entire sentence in the passage about Jesus rising from the dead on the third day is filled with Christian content. The phrase “on the third day” is found widely in the synoptic Gospels, Acts, and in Paul. Sometimes it takes on the character of a confessional statement (1 Cor 15:4). The bald statement “he appeared to them alive again” looks like a confession of faith in the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. The clause “because the Divine prophets had prophesied these . . . things about him” affirms the fulfillment of biblical prophecy in the resurrection of Jesus, a particularly Christian notion. If that were not enough, the passage adds that “myriad other” things in the prophets were fulfilled in Jesus.

So, it is apparent that Christians tampered with the text to prove a point, which was silly of them, cause the most likely original is very amazing in structure about Christ’s existence.

This is how many believe it should read, and originally read, calling it the “neutral reconstruction.”

“Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man,. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had first loved him did not cease. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared.”

THAT is the authentic text of Josephus!

Now where did Josephus get this information about Christ? The wording of almost every element of the reconstructed Testimonium indicates that Josephus did not draw it, directly or indirectly, from first-century Christian writings. Josephus’s careful, exclusive use of “Christ” as a title, not a personal name coupled with “Jesus” is also not likely to be drawn from the New Testament, which more often than not uses “Christ” as a personal name. And many other factors apply to point out that Josephus obtained any wording from the New Testament or other early Christian writings known to us. Did this information come indirectly through Christians or others to Josephus? We can be less sure about this, although the totality of the evidence points away from it. The level of accuracy in Josephus’s report does not usually derive from second-hand information from outsiders. Neither could it have come from Roman sources, because a lot of the time the information circulating among Romans regarding Jesus was faulty. More than likely Josephus gained his knowledge of Christianity when he lived in Palestine . He supplemented it in Rome , as the words “to this day” may imply, where there was a significant Christian presence. Whether Josephus acquired his data by direct encounter with Christians, indirect information from others about their movement, or some combination of both, one cannot be positive, but it’s the best plausible hypothesis.

Some mention this passage of Jesus was not in the original. First of all, the few texts of Josephus that we have are from the 11'th century, there is no actual original Josephus text, not that I'm aware of. The reason some say that the passage is a fraud is that there is "external" evidence "indicating" that it was not in the original works. Christian apologists of the second and third century knew Josephus's work, especially Irenaeus and Tertullian, but they never cited these passages when they would have been useful, perhaps. And Origen twice wrote that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ (Against Celsus 1.45; commentary on Matthew 10.17 cf. also Against Celsus2.13). But it's interesting that he is at least talking about Josephus denying Jesus as the Christ, or the Messiah, where as Josephus would have, obviously since he wasn't a Christian, especially in the neutral recontructive passage. The first mention of Josephus and this passage is from Eusebius 323 in his "Eclesiastical History." Also, there may have been texts from the Church Fathers that did not survive. But there is no concrete evidence that shows Josephus' writings on Christ were an entire forgery.

Furthermore, if a Christian was wise enough to forge a passage in Josephus's works, where part of it clearly sounds like Josephus, and another clearly Christian, he should've been wise enough to realize others would see it as a fraud and possibly dismiss the entire passage! as what some do today because of those few additions. I truly think it was some foolish, unwise, gullible christian simply trying to prove a point to non-believers. Overall, these reasons above lay to rest the claims of an entire fraud.

In sum, Josephus has given us in two passages something unique among all ancient non-Christian witnesses to Jesus: a carefully neutral, highly accurate and perhaps independent witness to Jesus, a wise man whom his persistent followers called “the Christ.”

If you wish to learn more on these things, especially Tacitus, Lucian, etc, in scholarly argument to your objections, I advice you to visit J.P.Holding's site. Here's a link there which opens to the film you all rant and rave about "The God Who Wasn't There." It's a review. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.html

Going down to Amish country has brought my faith back, not entirely, but quite a distance. I love the Lacaste rAmish folk, fellowshipped with some, and learned much about them. While I can never be Amish, I respect and understand why they do the things they do. The whole community down there is very friendly (even the non-Amish) and very family oriented, not to mention the feast of food!!!!

I know there are some rotten mean spirited theists in the world, but in my path it's usually the non-religious that come across as angry and hateful. I'm full aware that not all Atheists are "evil." I know alot of quite friendly ones who I respect. But I have never been treated as meanly and dark by religious people (mostly of the Christian faith, Buddhist too) than I have by selfish arrogant non-religious. (Again not all atheists are that way).

Fanatics come about now and then, religious and non-religious. And while it may be true that morality comes from within us, nevertheless, we hums are scientifically programmed for influence. And I would much rather be influenced by Orthodox Christianity, or Jesus Christ, rather than Valdimar Lennin, Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot.

Everytime I get talking with atheists, it seems my faith begins to burn all the more

God bless you Kelly, yes that's right, I'm illogical and irrational, but I'm also HAPPY God bless all of the RRS. Maybe one day too, you'll find the TRUTH!

--FindTruth--

Why did not kelly dominate him? She could have blown him out of the water I bet. So why the silence?