The New Testament? Rather than history? Like almost all religious text, useless, to the subject of history...Useless.

duvduv wrote:One of the most interesting things about the story of John the Baptist in the gospels is that the idea of immersion as forgiveness for sin has no basis whatsoever in Judaism.
Immersion in water, whether by a woman after her period, the high priest on Yom Kippur, or any man after a nocturnal immersion refers SOLELY to the idea of PURIFICATION of the soul, and has nothing whatsoever to do with remission, forgiveness or confession of sins at all. Confession of sins occurs at Yom Kippur during the prayer services, and is unrelated to the idea of immersion. So where did that idea come from to get incorporated into the gospels?

And beyond that, where did the story and importance of John the Baptist come from at all? He is really unnecessary to the thrust of the story of Jesus, and the story would be fine without it.

Furthermore, the word gospel as used in relation to John (Gospel of the Kingdom of God in Mark) is unexplained, as is the general term of the "the gospel of Jesus Christ". What is "THE gospel, and what is the Gospel of John of the Kingdom of God??

My opinion is that it was a rethink of the ritual bathing done by the Jews, as you've pointed out. Possibly that the fictional character is based on a historical one, perhaps a temple priest who performed the ceremonies around ritual bathing, and that his relationship to Jesus (a cousin) was added as support for the idea of Jesus being a real person. His importance is only as the initiator of 'baptism' as a renewal process. His story bears out the hypothesis of the church fiddling around with the writing of the original text, in my opinion.

proudfootz wrote:

dejuror wrote:The inclusion of the character called John the Baptist in the Canonised versions of the Jesus story is evidence that the Jesus story was fabricated from writings attributed to Josephus.

It can be easily seen the version of the Canonised Jesus story was assembled using Antiquities of the Jews 18 attributed to Josephus.

Examine Antiquities of the Jews.

1. John the Baptist in the Gospels---ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

2. Pontius Pilate in the Gospels----ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

3. Herodias in the Gospels---ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

4. The claim in the Gospels that John baptised Jews---ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

5. The Request to have someone' head cut-off in the Gospels---ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

6. The claim in the Gospels that Herod married his brother's wife---ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

7. The claim in the Gospels that John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod---ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

8. The claim in the Gospels that Herodias had a daughter----ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

9. The claim in the Gospels that Herod executed John the Baptist----ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

10. The Taxing of Cyrenius in the Gospels--- ONLY found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.


It is clear that the authors of the version of the Canonised Jesus story used Antiquities of the Jews 18 to fabricate their fables.

Excellent summary of what the 'gospels' owe to Josephus.

Yes.

dejuror wrote:

Blood wrote:Yes, I think this "prophecy" in Daniel was the reason why the Christ spirit was imagined to have descended during the time of Pilate. BUT the gospellers did not notice this "prophecy" until Josephus' AJ tipped them off. This is crucial. Not only do the gospellers rely on Josephus for all of their information about people and events in Judea and Galilee in the early first century, they also rely on Josephus (via Daniel) for the precise period when the Christ spirit inhabited the body of Jesus.

The Jesus cult Christians used the so-called prophecies of Daniel to argue that THEIR Jesus Christ [the Son of God] was BORN 70 years BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Daniel 9:2

In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, thathe would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Examine the Gregorian calender.

The Jewish Temple fell 70 AD [ANNO DOMINI]

Examine "Answer to the Jews" attributed to Tertullian.

It is clear that Christians writers used the book of Daniel to argue THEIR CHRIST was born 70 years before the Fall of the Jewish Temple

Answer to the Jews attributed to Tertullian

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.

For Daniel says, that both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.

And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His...

The Jesus story and characters in the NT was derived from writings attributed to Josephus some time after at least 93-94 CE.

Also it's interesting to view the prophecies of Daniel in the context of the occupation of Judea by the Greeks, something that the church chose to ignore in compiling their history. His prophecies could just as well have been written in the throes of fear about the dissolution of the culture of Judaism in the face of the paganism of the Greek occupiers and what they did to Judea, and that the "prophesying" was more along the lines of "if you don't stick to the ancient laws, the place will fall apart, but a king is coming who will destroy these occupiers" only the "king" that came after the Greeks were the Romans so the church had to find someone to fulfil the prophecy and they used Jesus as the fulfiller and John the Baptist as his vanguard. Or something like that. Who knows what really happened?

I must add, this is an interesting thread.

Blood wrote:If Josephus was writing in Rome, the most likely place his books would be available is Rome. Since the gospellers rely on Josephus's works, that would put them most likely proximate to Rome as well. Not Judea, Syria, or even Pontus.

All roads lead to Rome as the scene of the literary fabrication known as the (canonical) NT. Brodie posits a "literary school" behind the fabrication. So supposing Josephus and a Greek LXX were both available in Rome?

What further sources (not available in Rome) would the literary school require to fabricate the (canonical) books of the NT?

Besides the space coordinates we need a time coordinate. What are the earliest and latest possible dates for the canonical books of the NT if they were fabricated in Rome? A terminus post quem is the earliest time the event may have happened, and a terminus ante quem is the latest.

Everyone seems to be discussing the terminus post quem (earliest) possible dates. OK. Fair enough. However I'd like to see some ideas about the terminus ante quem (the latest possible time) for the appearance of what Emperor Julian describes as a "monstrous tale". I think its standard procedure in doing history, isn't it?

However, Suetonius and Tacitus have Christians in Rome in the 50s. What were their texts?

(IMHO?)

Middle age forgeries by the church industry.

The singular archetypal manuscript for Suetonius seems to have appeared very close in space and time to that in which the 9th century Carolingian north-central France church organisation (Latin) forgery mill known as Pseudo-Isidore was in operation out of Corbie Abbey. We already know that the supposedly 11th century Tacitus manuscript has been tampered with, and that no member of the Holiest of Holy Church Organisations cited Tacitus, even when they should have done so to support their own propaganda, until the manuscript "suddenly and unexpectedly" appeared out of the manuscript archives of the Monopoly Belief Business.

Their texts did not appear until the Middle Ages. I reject the hypothesis of the Immaculate Transmission of "Church Manuscripts" from antiquity.

proudfootz wrote:

duvduv wrote:It sounds like Josephus was responding to the gospels by indicating that immersion was NOT for forgiveness of sin. WHY would a Christian insert that whole part or even just that sentence?! To me it almost sounds as if that sentence were entered parenthetically as the real interpolation to remind people of the gospel version, i.e. to make it seem that the whole Josephus statement only CAME AFTER THE GOSPELS!!
Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.

Interesting observation.

But if Josephus was aware of the basic gospel narrative, it seems odd he only mentions JtB and not JoN.

I doubt Josephus had stumbled upon the Good News.

I think it is more likely that the Christian literary school stumbled upon Josephus, and selectively added bits and pieces, such as the TF. And the likely interpolation highlighted by duvduv above. The principle of a baptism by immersion in water is older than the Ganges. This baptism for forgiveness of sins sounds out of place in Josephus.

It does make it seem that Josephus was aware of the Jesus Story. But then again the church industry had the power to cite Josephus as a witness (via the "TF") for the Gospel Jesus Figure for well over a thousand years. During this time everyone was indoctrinated to believe (if they had the literary / academic skills) that Josephus was a witness to the "Jesus was the Christ, and here today still extant are his Nation of Christians".

It was not until the Age of Enlightenment that the "TF" was rationally perceived to be ...

"A rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",

--- Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, 1762.

Chronological Summary of the Censure of the "Testimonium Flavianum" (TF) as a forgery
prior to 1937, when the Feldman survey (retrospectively) started

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/C ... the_TF.htm


1762: Bishop Warburton of Gloucester -""a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too",
1767: Dr. Nathaniel Lardner quotes Bishop Warburtonof Gloucester.
1788: Edward Gibbon - "may furnish an example of no vulgar forgery". D&F V2,Ch16,Pt2,FN [36]

18??: Ittigius (CMU, 47),
18??: Blondel (CMU, 47)
18??: Le Clerc (CMU, 47)
18??: Vandale (CMU, 47)
18??: Tanaquil Faber.'" (CMU, 47)

1830: Dr. Alexander Campbell
1833: Dr. Thomas Chalmers
1842: Mitchell Logan, Christian Mythology Unveiled (CMU)
1873: Theodor Keim - cited by Acharya S
1874: Cannon Farrar - 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious'
1877: The Rev. Dr. Giles (Church of England) - "Hebrew and Christian records; an historical enquiry" - p. 30
1888: Rev. S. Baring-Gould - "Lost and Hostile Gospels," says: "first quoted by Eusebius - Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii);
1889: Rev. Dr. Hooykaas - "certainly spurious, inserted by a later Christian hand." (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27)
1890: Emil Schürer - A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ - REF
1894: Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins" - REF
1897: Jakob Burckhardt "Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity"

1900: Harnack - http://www.ccel.org/h/harnack
1909: John Remsburg; "The Christ" ("We must get rid of that Christ" - Emerson) - REF
1910: NY Times Article on Arthur Drews: "Jesus never lived" - REF
1912: Arthur Drews - The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus - REF
1922: Marshall J. Gauvin - "Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage." - REF
1928: Solomn Zeitlin, [1928]
1939: Charles Guignebert "Jesus" -- "a pure Christian forgery"
19??: Joseph McCabe - translator of Arthur Drews - REF

duvduv wrote:One of the most interesting things about the story of John the Baptist in the gospels is that the idea of immersion as forgiveness, for sin has no basis whatsoever in Judaism.

Immersion in water, whether by a woman after her period, the high priest on Yom Kippur, or any man after a nocturnal immersion, refers SOLELY to the idea of PURIFICATION of the soul, and has nothing whatsoever to do with remission, forgiveness or confession of sins at all. Confession of sins occurs at Yom Kippur during the prayer services, and is unrelated to the idea of immersion. So where did that idea come from to get incorporated into the gospels?

And beyond that, where did the story and importance of John the Baptist come from at all? He is really unnecessary to the thrust of the story of Jesus, and the story would be fine without it.

Furthermore, the word gospel as used in relation to John (Gospel of the Kingdom of God in Mark) is unexplained, as is the general term of the "the gospel of Jesus Christ". What is "THE gospel, and what is the Gospel of John of the Kingdom of God??

Agrippina wrote:My opinion is that it was a rethink of the ritual bathing done by the Jews, as you've pointed out. Possibly that the fictional character is based on a historical one, perhaps a temple priest who performed the ceremonies around ritual bathing, and that his relationship to Jesus (a cousin) was added as support for the idea of Jesus being a real person. His importance is only as the initiator of 'baptism' as a renewal process. His story bears out the hypothesis of the church fiddling around with the writing of the original text, in my opinion.

I wonder if it came from the cult of Serapis (or a similar 'mystery religion')- all the serapea had baths and water features.

The Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem (John 5) was, in the 1st century AD/CE, part of a combined serapea & asclepeion -

http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/il/teach ... erfeit-god -

"As archaeologists uncovered the Pool of Bethesda, a temple to the healing god Serapis was discovered ...

"We know the influence of Serapis spread to the city of Jerusalem as archaelogists have uncovered the temple built for him at the Pool of Bethesda. This pool has been excavated and has revealed its secrets. In the time of Yeshua, there were pipes in the floor of the pool that could release air to stir the water and create bubbles. Each morning, the priests of Serapis would release sacred snakes into the water to swim around and prepare it as an offering for the day. There were also hollow pipes along the pool that would carry the sound of the priests’ voices speaking as they beckoned the people to come to the water for healing.

"As if this was not enough, Asclepius, from whom Serapis received his healing characteristics, is often pictured in Greek mythology with the wings of an angel. Was this perhaps the “angel” the Gospel of John describes —an angel who plays favorites, does not heal everyone, and who only heals those who, most likely, do not need healing?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Bethesda -

"In the mid 1st century AD, Herod Agrippa expanded the city walls, bringing the asclepieion into the city. When Hadrian rebuilt Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, he placed a roadway along the dam, and expanded the asclepieion into a large temple to Asclepius and Serapis.[25] In the Byzantine era, the asclepieion was converted to a church."

.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
I doubt Josephus had stumbled upon the Good News.

Various posts here (+/- some in the HJ thread) suggest various aspects of Josephus' texts were the basis for characters and stories in the Good News.

Leucius Charinus wrote:I think it is more likely that the Christian literary school stumbled upon Josephus, and selectively added bits and pieces, such as the TF.

That's a given - see Ken Olsen's articles on that.

"The Eastern Orthodox faithful believe that John was the last of the Old Testament prophets, thus serving as a bridge between that period of revelation and the New Covenant. They also teach that, following his death, John descended into Hades and there once more preached that Jesus the Messiah was coming, so he was the Forerunner of Christ in death as he had been in life. Orthodox churches will often have an icon of St. John the Baptist in a place of honor on the iconostasis, and he is frequently mentioned during the Divine Services."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_ ... dox_Church

Although Mark's Gospel implies that the arrival of John the Baptist is the fulfilment of a prophecy from the Book of Isaiah, the words quoted (“I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way — a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”) are actually a composite of texts from Second Isaiah, the Book of Malachi and the Book of Exodus. Matthew and Luke drop the first part of the reference.[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Baptist

25 Carl R. Kazmierski (1996) John the Baptist: Prophet and Evangelist (Liturgical Press p.31.

I wonder if the name of John's father, Zechariah, is related to the OT Book of Zechariah

I thought that the churches accepted the Jewish view that the last person with prophecy was Malachi.

It sounds as if someone confused John's father Zachariah with the prophet who lived centuries before. But the themes associated with the Baptist include Elijah, and even Elkana the father of Samuel. In any event there must be a connection with John/Yochanan of Gischala/Ish Halav.

Plus the Quran mentions John as a prophet of significance, Yahya, although Muhammad is deemed the seal or final prophet (hatam).

Just to clarify this thinking......the interpretation on Daniel 9:27 was that the seventh "seventh" (seven seventies = 490 years) would lead to the destruction of the Temple, and "he" ("messiah") is born and died in the middle of the seventh seventy "week" (i.e. 33 CE) leading to the destruction in 70 CE.
And if this man is a conflation of Jesus ben Sapphias of Galilee (Nazareth?!), Ben Pandera and others into the time of Pilate, it turns out that they have Jesus of the NT.

Blood wrote:Nobody said it had to make sense.

I'm guessing that the historicization process involved Mark or whoever holding the books of Isaiah and the prophets in his left hand, and Josephus in his right. Once he hit on the idea that Isaiah 53 was a "prophecy" about the Christ (an idea, I believe, not present in Paul), he then went to Josephus to see how that idea could be properly written as quasi-history. The basic idea was that "the savior" must have descended to earth and taken human form in the early first century. But when? Perhaps Mark used his own interpretation of Daniel's highly elastic "70 Weeks" prophecy to locate the descent of the Christ spirit during the time of Pilate. The most important aspect was that the Christ spirit had to appear to "the Jews" and be killed in some way in order to explain the fall of the Temple in 70.

duvduv wrote:Just to clarify this thinking......the interpretation on Daniel 9:27 was that the seventh "seventh" (seven seventies = 490 years) would lead to the destruction of the Temple, and "he" ("messiah") is born and died in the middle of the seventh seventy "week" (i.e. 33 CE) leading to the destruction in 70 CE.
And if this man is a conflation of Jesus ben Sapphias of Galilee (Nazareth?!), Ben Pandera and others into the time of Pilate, it turns out that they have Jesus of the NT.

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel -

... modern scholarly consensus considers the book [of Daniel] pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE).

Chap 9: "Interpretation of Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy weeks (9:1–27 – Median era; Hebrew)"

Historical background
The visions of chapters 7–12 reflect the crisis which took place in Judea in 167–164 BCE when Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek king of the Seleucid Empire, threatened to destroy traditional Jewish worship in Jerusalem.[22] When Antiochus came to the throne the Jews were largely pro-Seleucid. The High Priestly family was split by rivalry, and one member, Jason, offered the king a large sum to be made High Priest. Jason also asked – or more accurately, paid – to be allowed to make Jerusalem a polis, or Greek city. This meant, among other things, that city government would be in the hands of the citizens, which meant in turn that citizenship would be a valuable commodity, to be purchased from Jason. None of this threatened the Jewish religion, and the reforms were widely welcomed, especially among the Jerusalem aristocracy and the leading priests. Three years later Jason was deposed when another priest, Menelaus, offered Antiochus an even larger sum for the post of High Priest.[23]

Antiochus invaded Egypt twice, in 169 BCE with success, but on the second incursion, in late 168, he was forced to withdraw by the Romans.[24] Jason, hearing a rumour that Antiochus was dead, attacked Menelaus to take back the High Priesthood.[24] Antiochus drove Jason out of Jerusalem, plundered the Temple, and introduced measures to pacify his Egyptian border by imposing complete Hellenisation: the Jewish Book of the Law was prohibited, as was circumcision, and on 15 December 167 an "abomination of desolation", probably a Greek altar, was introduced into the Temple.[25] With the Jewish religion now clearly under threat a resistance movement sprang up, led by the Maccabee brothers, and over the next three years it won sufficient victories over Antiochus to take back and purify the Temple.[24]

Authorship
...The book is a product of "Wisdom" circles, but the type of wisdom is mantic (the discovery of heavenly secrets from earthly signs) rather than the wisdom of learning – the main source of wisdom in Daniel is God's revelation.


Influence
Jewish and Christian influence
The concepts of immortality and resurrection, with rewards for the righteous and punishment for the wicked, were raised for the first time in Judaism in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. The doctrine has roots much deeper than Daniel, but is clearly stated in the final chapter of that book: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt."[65]

Daniel was quoted and referenced by both Jews and Christians the 1st century CE as predicting the imminent end-time.[68] Moments of national and cultural crisis continually reawakened the apocalyptic spirit, through the Montanists of the 2nd/3rd centuries, persecuted for their millennialism, to the more extreme elements of the 16th century Reformation such as the Zwikau prophets and the Anabaptists "Kingdom" in Munster.[6]

The Book of Daniel is part of the Ketuvim which was "not a fixed canon until the 2nd century CE." -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuvim#Canonization -



Evidence suggests, however, that the people of Israel were adding what would become the Ketuvim to their holy literature shortly after the canonization of the prophets. As early as 132 BCE we have references suggesting that the Ketuvim was starting to take shape, though it lacked a formal title.[7] We also know from references in the four Gospels as well as other books of the New Testament that many of these texts were both commonly known and counted as having some degree of religious authority early in the 1st century CE.

Many scholars [who?] believe that the limits of the Ketuvim as canonized scripture were determined by the Council of Jamnia c. 90 CE. Indeed, Against Apion, the writing of Josephus in 95 CE, treated the text of the Hebrew Bible as a closed canon to which "... no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable..."[8] However, we know that for a long time following this date that the divine inspiration of Esther, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes was often under scrutiny.[9]

Leucius Charinus wrote:......It does make it seem that Josephus was aware of the Jesus Story.

Actually it is the reverse. It would appear that the NT authors were aware of the writings attributed to Josephus.

Jesus of Nazareth in the NT is not found in the writings of Josephus.

The Jesus of Nazareth character was assembled from multiple characters called Jesus in writings of Josephus.

"The Life of Josephus" ----Jesus the son Sapphias--a Galilean and leader of a band of mariners.
"Wars of the Jews" ---Jesus the son of Ananus--predicted calamities in Jerusalem.
"Antiquities of the Jews"---Jesus the son of Damneus is called the Anointed [Christ]

Dejuror, if the gospel authors knew that Jesus son of Damneus, the "anointed" was dated in the sixties, by Josephus, how could they expect to get away with recasting him back into the 30s?! Anyone could see the discrepancy...Same goes for the Jesus of Gamla and son of Ananus despite the similarities in Josephus.
vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm

duvduv wrote:Dejuror, if the gospel authors knew that Jesus son of Damneus, the "anointed" was dated in the sixties, by Josephus, how could they expect to get away with recasting him back into the 30s?! Anyone could see the discrepancy...Same goes for the Jesus of Gamla and son of Ananus despite the similarities in Josephus.
vridar.info/xorigins/josephus/2jesus.htm

Well, if people knew Jesus was the son of Joseph then how could the gospel authors expect to get away by claiming he was born of a Ghost and a Virgin?

In "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen the author knew of writings attributed to Josephus but still claimed his Jesus was born of a Ghost.

In fact, it is claimed in "Against Celsus" that it was EXPECTED that people would INVENT falsehood because they did not believe Jesus was born of a Ghost.

"Against Celsus"

let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage.

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

How could the supposed Origen get away with such idiotic ghost stories?

It is easy!!! Very very easy!!!

"Against Celsus" was composed HUNDREDS of years after the time of Augustus, King Herod the Great, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero.

Now, examine the NT.

How did the gospel authors get away with their discrepancie and monstrous fables??

It should be easy for you!!!!

When do you say the Gospels were written?

In the 4th century!!!!

Who had copies of the works of Josephus in the 4th century to check for discrepancies??

The Illiterate???

It should be obvious that the NT authors wrote their stories of Jesus very late.

I get the point. They would have known that few people could have asked questions based on Josephus, and they wouldn't have had to even claim that the Josephus books were lying about the "real" Jesus and his life in the 30s.

duvduv wrote:I get the point. They would have known that few people could have asked questions based on Josephus, and they wouldn't have had to even claim that the Josephus books were lying about the "real" Jesus and his life in the 30s.

The writings attributed to Josephus mention MULTIPLE characters called Jesus and do not claim anyone of them was born of a Ghost or that John baptized for remission of sins.

It is clear that Christian writers did NOT care about other books.

Isn't the OT fastened to the NT in the Christian Bible?

How could the NT WRITERS expect to get away with their discrepoancies when the OT itself does not support the Blasphemy against the Jews?

The NT writers OPENLY manipulated the OT.

What else did they manipulate??

It is easy!! Very easy!!

Just look for the DISCREPANCIES!!!