Stephen

 People should obey everything I say.

Then why don't they?

They think they will benefit from homosexuality and other crimes

That wasn't my question.

Why don't people obey everything you say?

Because they think disobedience will benefit them.

What gave them that idea?

They create their own ideas. Nobody "gives" ideas to them. The ideas are self created.

 People should obey everything I say.

Then why don't they?

They think they will benefit from homosexuality and other crimes

That wasn't my question.

Why don't people obey everything you say?

Because they think disobedience will benefit them.

The Reverend gave reasons for the thread on Josephus following the case for the Historical Jesus by Shila.

Reverend wrote: You would hardly expect anything else though would you?  Christians rely upon the bible - but since some people without a clue or an education suggest the bible is not a valid source to rely upon will only accept other sources - the go to case is going to be Josephus.  There are a few others but too many - since there are not too many sources for anything back then for anybody.    You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus.

Nope. What the Reverend is doing in that post in all his perceived wisdom -  is simply saying that Christians will point to Josephus as support for their opinion that the bible is valid. And I agreed. Why ever wouldn't they?  But the fact is, it appears to be that the Reverend  is the only one here that is dismissing Josephus outright because S/he says:

Treadsecret wrote: "we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up.  We can probably dismiss most of his work as made up. #1

I had to remind the cretinous clown that if he is talking about discarding and dismissing the ancient works of Josephus in its entirety then the same can be said for all ancient works including the bible. Here>>> #8

  For all of his/her alleged high education, the Reverend produces some of the weakest if not childish arguments that go nowhere in supporting his bible, his religion, his god or his faith.

See Here>>   Is Josephus a real historical figure? (debateart.com)

You raise a strong  argument against the Reverend. Reverend is someone who likes it both ways apparently  from your examples.

He has repeatedly attacked Reverend Tradesecret.

@ Public-Choice, the continued Bible fool,

YOUR QUOTE IN SAYING THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF!!!!:  "How do you explain Deborah, Esther, and Phoebe being in positions of leadership in addition to the prophetesses Anna, Isaiah's wife, and Philip's four daughters if women are to keep silent in the church?"

Are you going on record within this forum in stating that Jesus' JUDEO-Christian Bible is contradicting itself with your statement above?  How dare you state that Jesus' inspired words are contradicting to , BLASPHEME!!!

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

Listen up you dumbfounded Bible fool, what Jesus' inspired words SAID ONCE, He did not perceive them to say something that is contradicting to what He said in the first place, understood?!  You will pay upon Judgment Day for sure because you are guilty of the following passage: "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." (Romans 16:17-18)

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

I am still wondering what the point of tis thread is all about, Brother D.

I am still wondering why the Reverend created this thread to be honest, Brother D.

I can only guess that the Reverend is trying to ask why is that people (atheist) will accept Josephus as existing when no one will accept that Jesus/god existed or exists. If I am correct, then s/he needs to rethink her whole premiss.

The Reverend gave reasons for the thread on Josephus following the case for the Historical Jesus by Shila.

Reverend wrote: You would hardly expect anything else though would you?  Christians rely upon the bible - but since some people without a clue or an education suggest the bible is not a valid source to rely upon will only accept other sources - the go to case is going to be Josephus.  There are a few others but too many - since there are not too many sources for anything back then for anybody.    You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus.

Treadsecret wrote: "we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up.  We can probably dismiss most of his work as made up. #1

Best.Korea:  People should obey everything I say.

Stephen: Then why don't they?

Best.Korea: They think they will benefit from homosexuality and other crimes

Stephen: That wasn't my question.

Why don't people obey everything you say?

You have a way of stumping this Korean god. He might go back to testing missiles.

How do you explain Deborah, Esther, and Phoebe being in positions of leadership in addition to the prophetesses Anna, Isaiah's wife, and Philip's four daughters if women are to keep silent in the church?

Deborah was a judge over Israel for goodness sake. That was a political office instituted by God

I am still wondering what the point of tis thread is all about, Brother D.

I assume purpose of this topic is satirical and is intended to make God look ridiculous.  

 People should obey everything I say.

Then why don't they?

They think they will benefit from homosexuality and other crimes

That wasn't my question.

 People should obey everything I say.

I can achieve almost everything with my power.

You only need to follow the Bible literally.

The Bible is always right

Why did I create a woman?

 You would have to be a fool not to think that Christians wouldn't rely upon Josephus. 

You would hardly expect anything else though would you? 

Tradsecret wrote: ...we obviously have no eyewitness accounts that he is a real historical figure.  He's probably a legend someone dreamed up. ......Since he apparently is the main source for many ancient legends,  we can probably dismiss most of his work as made up. #1

You forgot to mention Jainism.

Though I fail to see what any of this has to do with the "essence of life".

Christians don’t rely heavily on Josephus. They have the Bible.

Shila wrote: The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.

Josephus would seem to have the same credentials as Jesus.

The consensus among historical scholars is that Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a historical person. I have no trouble believing that.

For me the difficulty lies in what can be confidently known about him. Did he really think he was the son of God, or was that a belief that developed after his death? Was he really betrayed by Judas? What exactly did Jesus teach -- how much of what we know as "Christ's teachings" were really his teachings? To what degree did he actually anticipate his death? And so on.

The fact that 4th century Christians were relying heavily on Josephus for a picture of 1st century Jewish life certainly suggests that the 4th century considered Josephus an authentically first century source.

 you think I have problems!

You still seem to have me confused with someone who gives a crap about what you think,....... Did you want me to be someone who gives a crap? ...... And you were hoping I would give a crap, 

I'm sorry, but that’s just not my thing......

But even that gets up your nose doesn't it Stephen.

--> @Tradesecret

 Ethan gets more mentions than the rest of you together - 

  

Yes, 

for all the wrong reasons.  Public Moderation Log (debateart.com)

The link says Ethang was banned for sexual harassment.

Is the Reverend defending his actions?

for instance, the Golden Rule "do unto others", is believed by some to have originated with Confucius. This not to reduce the import in any way.

Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages, 

Were you of the opinion that people think Jesus invented religion?

The historical Jesus had a movement following after him,

 So had all the others until their time was up and along came a new 'god' on the block when the skies moved into a new age.  <<< you should seriously consider that.

I actually had already seriously considered that there were other people with followers both before and after Jesus,

what is the significance of that, how does pointing that out serve your agenda?

The Gospels are not simply about what happened to Jesus, they are also about what happened to Jesus’ followers, who experienced His continuing presence as a living reality long after his death.

Well, if one wanted to continue a movement after it lost its leader, that is the "vision" and image I would be promoting.

And you think being a catalyst for a movement that two thousand years later is two billion strong, amounts to “no change”, 

  The historical Jesus didn’t found the Christian church by his ministry, the church came into being after His death, it is the resurrection that is the starting point of Christian religion. 

(A) And I believe that the Jew Jesus would have been absolutely appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.

I would agree with that speculation, I think early Christianity was a movement within Judaism that was tolerated until the destruction of the second temple, afterward it was seen as a threat to traditional Judaism and rejected as having moved far enough away from traditional Judaism to no be a separate religion.

An honest reading of what he actually said and did indicates that he was a Jewish rabbi who walked in the tradition of the prophets, was a teacher, a healer and wonderworker, a man that challenged prevailing systems of purity while associating with the marginal elements of society. 

 I can agree with some of that. But it is not unusual for say a politician to come out on the side of the poor and disenfranchised and that claims to " feel you pain" is it?  Seriously what better and more fertile place to gather new recruits?  And why? because this is where one will find the numbers. There are more of "us" than there are "them", that is why?

Is this conspiracy scholarship, do you think Jesus was trying to get elected?  What office do you think he was campaigning for? 

There is no historical evidence that he ever intended to establish a new set of religious dogmas or found a new religion.

 I agree see (A) above. It was those that came after and maybe the few remaining members of the original movement. and we have to consider that which Jesus himself is alleged to have said " I have not come to change the law". 

Yep, I’ve considered that, and the point you are making again?

 

(a)It appears that you are trying to make an argument of some kind, it’s just not clear what it is you are arguing.  If you were to have made you point, what would be the conclusion?

His teaching "astonished" those who heard him.

Maybe it did. But again, this is nothing new. He was speaking to a new generation of a nation that had been under one foreign rule) or another for hundreds of years and heir gods by the time Jesus made his appearance there had been many "messiahs" come and go.

OK, and you were thinking that there are people who think that Jesus was the first person in history to “astonish” those who heard him?  How doesn’t pointing out that he wasn’t serve you agenda, what is the point?

There could be an entirely different answer to this if ,Jesus survived the cross,

OK, do tell, what changed only if Jesus survived the cross? 

which is what I believe.

Do you think that you are the first person in history to believe that? 

Also, how does your assertion relate to your BOP game,

is there a burden of proof that Jesus survived the cross,

or do you have a “get out of BOP free” card, or maybe you are wearing your cloak of BOP invisibility?

My thread is open to all and everyone 

And so it should be. 

Until they are politely asked to leave.

No one has been asked to leave on this thread.

I know. That will be because no one is wilfully derailing your thread and taking it off topic..... except you.

Everyone needs a chance to say where they stand with the Historical Jesus.

Stephen wrote: And what is it that you believe Jesus changed during the short time of his ministry?

almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the Gospels,

The historical Jesus had a movement following after him,

The Gospels are not simply about what happened to Jesus, they are also about what happened to Jesus’ followers, who experienced His continuing presence as a living reality long after his death.

  The historical Jesus didn’t found the Christian church by his ministry, the church came into being after His death, it is the resurrection that is the starting point of Christian religion. 

An honest reading of what he actually said and did indicates that he was a Jewish rabbi who walked in the tradition of the prophets, was a teacher, a healer and wonderworker, a man that challenged prevailing systems of purity while associating with the marginal elements of society. 

There is no historical evidence that he ever intended to establish a new set of religious dogmas or found a new religion.

His teaching "astonished" those who heard him.

Seeing how the historical Jesus reacted to the violence, corruption, and political and religious oppression he faced may help us all to see how the "Christ force" might act in us today and with what passion and unambiguous focus we may challenge the rather similar circumstances we face.

 Ethan gets more mentions than the rest of you together -

  

--> @Shila

Stephen you are a pathological liar.

Nope .  You offered him an invitation.   The brother only mentioned him as part of a related post

My thread is open to all and everyone

Stephen you are a pathological liar.

You and BrotherD have more exchanges with Tradesecret than Shila. 

But I cannot dismiss the Reverend as I am sure he will comment favourably on Jesus’s ascension into modernity.

maybe you could start by,,,,

 and then ....

Then...

How do you know that they were the same Jews?  Did you miss the part where on Jesus and his entourage entering Jerusalem the people were asking who tf is this clown?

 No one in Jerusalem even knew who he was Matthew 21:10

The crowds that followed Jesus knew Jesus and answered.

Matthew 21:11 The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”

 That is why his followers had to shout out and wave palm trees to attract attention to him. This alone was an affront to the hierarchy of the temple authorities. It is known in scripture as Jesus' "triumphant entry". Some triumph that was. It was only a matter of days after this "triumph" when he was nailed up, speared and pleading to his "father why tf have you forsaken me".  Sound like a loss of faith to me, to be honest.

 Learn your bible. 

They were saying in celebration .

Matthew 21:A very large crowd spread their cloaks on  the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,“Hosannato the Son of David!”“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

Who are the "they"?

The Jews who shouted Hosanna.

They are also the same Jews who shouted crucify him when Jesus did not meet their expectation.

You could be a bigger freak than Reverend Tradesecret.

Shila wrote: But you are different and very grounded. #131

That is a good example  of the case for the Historical Jesus which is based on truth and does not require faith. It offers Simple answers without getting into the philosophical nature of "truth."

Thank you. 

Shila, you seem have misinterpretation down to a fine art.

You wrote: I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.

 Yes I wrote that.  And stand by it. I mean exactly what I wrote. I could write it slightly different if you like but I would still mean the same thing. Here you go. I believe that there was once a man that believed himself to be king of the Jews that other men shrouded in myth.

Is it possible they wanted Jesus to be the King of the Jews.

If his behaviour concerns you at all, then it is his compulsive lying that you should take more seriously. I am not interested in his depravity, or his compulsive lying and would rather not speak about it unless I am given good reason to. That's the trouble with compulsive liars, they say that many they cannot keep up with themselves and will trip themselves up very easily. He of all people should know all this, he's a criminal defence lawyer, too with clients.... isn't he?

Compulsive lying is proof he has not mastered the truth and has to lie to cover his deficiencies.

just like before, you made us laugh so hard with your complete Biblical stupidity that was easily refuted! ( My personal favorite that I have on file was your outright laughable position regarding Noah's ark, remember dear? That had to be the best Bible comedy ever written, and worth a spot on Saturday Night Live in the USA!  Priceless!)

"Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead.  Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian. #33" 

I don't like the idea of me or my family being lumped in with "most" atheist that he has met.

Reverend Tradesecret was recalling his days as an atheist and the life he led before his conversion. One could read it as nostalgia.

 hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily. 

You have helped me take Reverend Tradesecret’s depravity more seriously.

You wrote: I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.

But we first have to conduct ourselves worthy of such a discussion.

It is difficult seeing / thinking a person would talk harshly  OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN .

ESPECIALLY TO A FEMALE.  

This is something we in the forum  should of done for trade buttttt. 

The only one doing any whining around here is you.

  You just don't have the integrity to admit you were stalking.

And you don't have the humility to do anything about it - EXCEPT - continue to whine on about how righteous you think you are

- and how self - defeating you think I am.

I hate to see a Reverend reduced to a bible fool.

Well he/she doesn't believe s/he is, does s/he?  

Maybe he is not very articulate.

Are you kidding me!!?  Have you not read his ever-increasing list qualifications and accolades? He was taught and trained by the best in the business. He translates ancient languages into English. He has been taught to memorise the bible from a very early age, he charges universities to tutor their students and he is a criminal lawyer!!  And you say he is not articulate!!?  Behave yourself shila.😂

If you and pussycat found  him very articulate , why are you two treating him like he is a bible fool?

Why were the Jewish elders upset if Jesus was their promised messiah?

Sounds like Congress had better open up a commission to investigate her for treason then.

If the victims are black it's racist. If the shooter is black it's racist. If the shooter and victim is black it's racist. If neither is black it's racist (for leavin them out)

I did correct the Reverend over his scriptures.

That I suppose is part of the purpose of a religion forum. Did he cry when you "corrected" him/her?  S/he usually does when I have had to correct the bible ignorant clown. S/he calls this an attack and bullying.

and gender dysphoria. But it was done very professionally.

It has never concerned me what he/she wants to be, is or was. I will admit that I was always curious why a man chosen by god would want to tell lies about hi/herself to begin with. Still, that his/her business. 

I hate to see a Reverend reduced to a bible fool.

Maybe he is not very articulate.

We know Jesus was crucified because he was misunderstood.