Unë e akuzoj zotin e besimtarëve

[baaroar]

Kurse robinjat realisht kishin kete problem sepse duke qene se nuk kishte me meshkuj ne popullin e tyre qe ti mbronin ato do te ishin ne kujdetarine e hebrenjve. Dhe e di cfare ato me mire qe ishin robinja ose sherbetore ne Izrael se sa te jetonin me njerezit e Madianit qe i perdornin si tu donte qejfi.
hebrenjte asnjehere nuk perdornin vajzat si tu donte qejfi kjo nuk thuhet gjekundi ne bibel.
Ka paur raste qe ka ndodhur por kjo eshte quajtur e denushme dhe eshte denuar nga Perendia.

Martesa e një gruaje robinjë lufte
Ligji i përtërirë 21:14
"Në qoftë se më vonë nuk të pëlqen më, do ta lësh të shkojë ku të dojë, por nuk mund ta shesësh për para as ta trajtosh si skllave, sepse ti e ke poshtëruar."

Pra nëse merr për grua një robinjë lufte, nëse nuk të pëlqen më, pa asnjë justifikim tjetër, e lë.
Kjo është përkujdesja e hebrenjve për robinjat e luftës, pasi i kishin vrarë prindërit, vëllezërit e të gjithë kushërinjtë meshkuj, motrat dhe të gjitha kushërirat jo të virgjëra. Këto nuk i them unë, janë të urdhëruara e të bëra sipas Fjalës së Perëndisë.
Nuk i mjaftonte kaq robinjave, por edhe poshtërimi i tyre, i lejuar nga Zoti.
Thirri arsyes o njeri! Mos mbro antivlerat njerëzore! Ky nuk është Zoti i dashurisë që predikon Jezus Krishti.

[EuroStar1]

Po ti a ke ndonje deshmi historike qe Jezusi nuk ka egzistuar?

Alban, mbi kundershtimet qe ke me Dalanin per ekzistencen e Jezusit

Çka pohohet pa prova, mund të rrëzohet pa prova.
Kristofer Hiçens


Nese ti pohon dicka, duhet te sjellesh prova, ne te kundert pohimi yt mund te rexohet pa patur nevoje per deshmi , prova etj
Tani ti je i bindur qe Jezusi i paqes ka ekzistuar dhe une dua te bej disa pyetje per te, nese me lejon kuptohet.

1) Cfar argumenti me jep qe Maria ishte vertete virgjershe dhe qe lindi Jezusin ?

2) Kush e ruajti Marine per te garantuar qe ajo ishte e paprekur nga ndonje njeri ?

3) Perse lbrat historik flasin per kedo , pervec profeteve te Zotit ?

4) Ku jane shenjat e dukshme historike te lena trashgimi per keto profete te rendesishem ?

5) Perse sot nuk ka me profete ?

6) Perse sot nuk ka me mrekulli ?

7) Toka eshte e sheshte apo jo ?

Do doja qe te kisha nje shpjegim per cdo pyetje.

Te pershendes

[albani1]

Në fillim ishte ashtu... pastaj Moisiu u tha të bënin ashtu... pastaj Krishti ua sqaroi përfundimisht se nuk ishte plotësisht ashtu por ashtu...
Keshtu pra... jam shumë i qartë tani sidomos pas postimit të fundit.

...... kam ndermend ti kthehem peseri kesaj ceshtjeje nese do lexo postimet perseri.

[VOLSIV]

Alban, mbi kundershtimet qe ke me Dalanin per ekzistencen e Jezusit

Çka pohohet pa prova, mund të rrëzohet pa prova.
Kristofer Hiçens


Nese ti pohon dicka, duhet te sjellesh prova, ne te kundert pohimi yt mund te rexohet pa patur nevoje per deshmi , prova etj
Tani ti je i bindur qe Jezusi i paqes ka ekzistuar dhe une dua te bej disa pyetje per te, nese me lejon kuptohet.

1) Cfar argumenti me jep qe Maria ishte vertete virgjershe dhe qe lindi Jezusin ?

2) Kush e ruajti Marine per te garantuar qe ajo ishte e paprekur nga ndonje njeri ?

3) Perse lbrat historik flasin per kedo , pervec profeteve te Zotit ?

4) Ku jane shenjat e dukshme historike te lena trashgimi per keto profete te rendesishem ?

5) Perse sot nuk ka me profete ?

6) Perse sot nuk ka me mrekulli ?

7) Toka eshte e sheshte apo jo ?

Do doja qe te kisha nje shpjegim per cdo pyetje.

Te pershendes

>>> Nese nuk te ngel hatri po pergjigjem une mqns me dolen perseri perpara keto pyetje. Ndoshta po bej gabim te pergjigjem pyetjeve qe do kishin nevoje per nje Doktorr Kishe por po e provoj nje here.

1) Cfar argumenti me jep qe Maria ishte vertete virgjershe dhe qe lindi Jezusin ?
Provat qe ka lindur Jezusi nuk lidhen vetem me deshmite e apostujeve por edhe me eksperiencat e Shenjtoreve gjate gjithe historise se Kishes duke filluar nga shen Agostini i Ipones , Shen Francesku i Asizit dhe deri tek Shen Pio i Pietralcines i cili nuk ka me shume se 50 vjet qe ka vdekur dhe mund te konsiderohet nje dhurate per mijevjecarin qe lame. (Ishte franceskani i dyte me Stigmatat per 50 vjet dhe nje shenjtor kujtimi i te cilit eshte akoma i fresket ne Itali dhe tek te krishteret qe paten fatin ta njohin).
Gjithashtu Lindja e Krishtit eshte paralajmeruar nga profetet e dhiates se vjeter dhe me e bukura, ke nje veper te Pjeter Bogdanit Ceta e Pofeteve e cila liston te gjithe profetet qe paralajmeruan ardhjen e Krishtit.
Persa i perket virgjerise se Marise eshte dicka qe mund te pranohet vetem nese besohet ekzistenca e Zotit ne te kundert kjo eshte nje gje e pamundur dhe eshte e kote te zgjatemi.


2) Kush e ruajti Marine per te garantuar qe ajo ishte e paprekur nga ndonje njeri ?

Per te mos e zgjatur kot, shume gjera marrin kuptim nese pranohet nje argument i caktuar.
Pra nese pranojme qe ka nje Zot qe ka aftesi krijuese nga asgjeja, qe eshte i perjetshem dhe fuqia dhe intelegjenca e tij eshte maximumi i mundshem, I cili vendosi qe universi te kete kete forme dhe keto ligje, qe rremben ne ekstaze shenjtoret etj etj mendoj se nuk ka ndonje gje qe nuk shkon nese ai vendos qe nenen qe do lindi birin e tij mos ta njollose.

3) Perse lbrat historik flasin per kedo , pervec profeteve te Zotit ?

Nese ti me pergjigjesh perse librat e historise ne shqiperi nuk thone te verteten ne lidhje me komunizmin, demokracine e sotme apo me historine e Padre Pios atehere edhe une te pergjigjem perse librat nuk flasin per njerezit e Zotit.

4) Ku jane shenjat e dukshme historike te lena trashgimi per keto profete te rendesishem ?

Per profetet nuk e kuptoj se cfare shenje te dukshme kerkon kur atyre mund tu gjesh varrin apo per apostujt per te cilet themeluan kishen

5) Perse sot nuk ka me profete ?

Mendoj se profete nuk ka me sepse e verteta u ezaurua me ardhjen e vet te Vertetes midis nesh. Askush nuk mund te ta pershkruaj te verteten nese nuk eshte pjese e saj.

6) Perse sot nuk ka me mrekulli ?

Sot ka mrekulli sa te duash.

7) Toka eshte e sheshte apo jo ?

Kete pyetje nuk e prisja.

[EuroStar1]

>>> Nese nuk te ngel hatri po pergjigjem une mqns me dolen perseri perpara keto pyetje. Ndoshta po bej gabim te pergjigjem pyetjeve qe do kishin nevoje per nje Doktorr Kishe por po e provoj nje here.

1) Cfar argumenti me jep qe Maria ishte vertete virgjershe dhe qe lindi Jezusin ?
Provat qe ka lindur Jezusi nuk lidhen vetem me deshmite e apostujeve por edhe me eksperiencat e Shenjtoreve gjate gjithe historise se Kishes duke filluar nga shen Agostini i Ipones , Shen Francesku i Asizit dhe deri tek Shen Pio i Pietralcines i cili nuk ka me shume se 50 vjet qe ka vdekur dhe mund te konsiderohet nje dhurate per mijevjecarin qe lame. (Ishte franceskani i dyte me Stigmatat per 50 vjet dhe nje shenjtor kujtimi i te cilit eshte akoma i fresket ne Itali dhe tek te krishteret qe paten fatin ta njohin).
Gjithashtu Lindja e Krishtit eshte paralajmeruar nga profetet e dhiates se vjeter dhe me e bukura, ke nje veper te Pjeter Bogdanit Ceta e Pofeteve e cila liston te gjithe profetet qe paralajmeruan ardhjen e Krishtit.
Persa i perket virgjerise se Marise eshte dicka qe mund te pranohet vetem nese besohet ekzistenca e Zotit ne te kundert kjo eshte nje gje e pamundur dhe eshte e kote te zgjatemi.


2) Kush e ruajti Marine per te garantuar qe ajo ishte e paprekur nga ndonje njeri ?

Per te mos e zgjatur kot, shume gjera marrin kuptim nese pranohet nje argument i caktuar.
Pra nese pranojme qe ka nje Zot qe ka aftesi krijuese nga asgjeja, qe eshte i perjetshem dhe fuqia dhe intelegjenca e tij eshte maximumi i mundshem, I cili vendosi qe universi te kete kete forme dhe keto ligje, qe rremben ne ekstaze shenjtoret etj etj mendoj se nuk ka ndonje gje qe nuk shkon nese ai vendos qe nenen qe do lindi birin e tij mos ta njollose.

Deri ketu nuk ke sjelle asnje argument

3) Perse lbrat historik flasin per kedo , pervec profeteve te Zotit ?

Nese ti me pergjigjesh perse librat e historise ne shqiperi nuk thone te verteten ne lidhje me komunizmin, demokracine e sotme apo me historine e Padre Pios atehere edhe une te pergjigjem perse librat nuk flasin per njerezit e Zotit.

Ti don te tallesh apo don te flasesh seriozisht ? Behet fjale per Zotin dhe jo per politika qe sipas teje na ke ber nje krahasim

4) Ku jane shenjat e dukshme historike te lena trashgimi per keto profete te rendesishem ?

Per profetet nuk e kuptoj se cfare shenje te dukshme kerkon kur atyre mund tu gjesh varrin apo per apostujt per te cilet themeluan kishen

Varre u dolen edhe ushtareve grek ne shqiperi, por fshataret thane se jan te gjysherve te tyre.

5) Perse sot nuk ka me profete ?

Mendoj se profete nuk ka me sepse e verteta u ezaurua me ardhjen e vet te Vertetes midis nesh. Askush nuk mund te ta pershkruaj te verteten nese nuk eshte pjese e saj.

Nuk eshte ezauruar e verteta, por enigma fetare... Pra doli bllof, se perndryshe nuk do kishte kaq ligesi dhe dyshim mbi fene.

6) Perse sot nuk ka me mrekulli ?

Sot ka mrekulli sa te duash.

Me thuaj nje, vetem kullen e pizes qe rrin me njane mos ma sill si argument se me ze ngushte me kete mrekulli

7) Toka eshte e sheshte apo jo ?

Kete pyetje nuk e prisja.

Epo nga injorantet duhet te presesh cdo lloj pyetje dhe eshte detyre e njerezve te besimeve qe ti ndricojne.

Te pershendes

[albani1]

Ke dhënë përgjigje por nuk ke sjellë deri tani as edhe një dëshmi të vetme historike.
Debati është i hapur për të gjithë anëtarët.

1. Taciti ishte nje historian romak, dy librat kryesore te te cilit flasin per Jezusin si personazh historik. Librat e tij jane : Analet dhe Historite.

Ai shkruante tek Analet rreth vitit 115 pas krishtit:
'' Nje klase e urryrer per neverite e tyre, te quajtur kristiane nga popullata. Krishti nga i cili emri kishte prejardhjen vuajti denim ekstrem gjat sundimit te Tiberit ne duart e nje prej prokuratoreve tane Ponc Pilati''

Kjo tregon per nje dokumetn historik te nje historiani romak i cili e urrente krishterimin. Ai e permend Jezusin si person historik.

2. Jozefus historiani me i mirenjohur i shek te pare.Ne librin e tij lashtesite shkruar ne vitet 90-95 pas krishtit ai permend jakobin vella i Jezusit qe quehj krisht. Ai flet edhe ne nje pjese tjeter per Jezusin duke treguar qarte per figuren e Tij qe paraqitet edhe ne ungjijte.

Jozefusi--- '' rreth kesaj kohe ishte Jezusi nje burre i mencur... sepse ishte i tille qe bente punera qe te cudisnin.....Ishte Krishti.. Ai u shfaq atyre ne diten e trete i gjalle sic kishin parathene profetet hyjnore keto dhe dhjete mije gjera te mrekulueshme per te.''

3. Dramaturgu grek Luciani i cili shkroi ne shek e dyte tallet me kristianet qe ''edhe sot e kesaj dite adhurojne nje njeri i cili u kryqezua''--- ( Luciani , vdekja e shtegtarit, 11-13, ne ''Veprat e Lucianit '' , vellimi 4 , perkthyer nga fowler.


4. Talmudi --- liber i shenjte hebre por edhe historik. Flet per jezusin dhe vdekjen e tij te dhunshme. Ky liber eshte pranuar se daton ne vitet 70-200 pas krishitt.

Pjese te ketij libri:
a. Sanhedrin 43a--- flet per vdekjen e Jezusit dhe per kryqezimin e Tij si dhe per vjedhjen sipas ketij libri te trupit te Jezusit nga varri prej dishepujve te Tij.
Pra pranohet se Jezusi ishte person historik.
b. Sanhedrin 106b thote se Jezusi ishte 33 vjec kur vdiq - saktesisht sic e thote edhe dhjata e re

5. Plini nje zyrtar qeveritar romak flet per nje grup te krishteresh qe adhuronin Krishtin dhe mblidheshin sebashku dhe kryenin sherbesat perkujtuese. ( Letra per Plini, perkthyer nga W. Melmoth, Vell 2, X96.)


6 F.F Bruce tek ''origjinat e krishtera'' shkruan per referime te nje historiani te quajtur Talus rreth vitit 52 pas Krishtit, pastaj bruce tregon ne ''Dokumentet e dhjates se re'' se nje studiues i quajtur Jul Afrikanus citon nga Talus duke u tallur me pershkrimin e erresires ne momentin e kryqezimit te Jezusit sikur ishte nje eklips diellor. Kjo tregon se Talus ka shkruar per kryqezimin e Jezusit si nje fakt historik te ndodhur para vitit 52 AD kohe kur kishte shkruar referimet e veta.


Keto dokumente vertetojne egzistencen historike te personit Jezus .
Por per te mesuar me teper per te duhet te studiosh edhe librat historike te Ungjijve.

[baaroar]

Kërkoj ndjesë për sjelljen e materialit në anglisht, pasi është voluminoz dhe nuk mund të marr përsipër ta përkthej të plotë, lexoje me durim.

1. Taciti ishte nje historian romak, dy librat kryesore te te cilit flasin per Jezusin si personazh historik. Librat e tij jane : Analet dhe Historite.

Ai shkruante tek Analet rreth vitit 115 pas krishtit:
'' Nje klase e urryrer per neverite e tyre, te quajtur kristiane nga popullata. Krishti nga i cili emri kishte prejardhjen vuajti denim ekstrem gjat sundimit te Tiberit ne duart e nje prej prokuratoreve tane Ponc Pilati''

Kjo tregon per nje dokumetn historik te nje historiani romak i cili e urrente krishterimin. Ai e permend Jezusin si person historik.

Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

Eusebius of Caesarea, Catholic Church HistorianBased on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author....

In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations."

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."

It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed—to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

2. Jozefus historiani me i mirenjohur i shek te pare.Ne librin e tij lashtesite shkruar ne vitet 90-95 pas krishtit ai permend jakobin vella i Jezusit qe quehj krisht. Ai flet edhe ne nje pjese tjeter per Jezusin duke treguar qarte per figuren e Tij qe paraqitet edhe ne ungjijte.

Jozefusi--- '' rreth kesaj kohe ishte Jezusi nje burre i mencur... sepse ishte i tille qe bente punera qe te cudisnin.....Ishte Krishti.. Ai u shfaq atyre ne diten e trete i gjalle sic kishin parathene profetet hyjnore keto dhe dhjete mije gjera te mrekulueshme per te.

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE. In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

This surprisingly brief and simplistic passage constitutes the "best proof" of Jesus's existence in the entire ancient non-Christian library comprising the works of dozens of historians, writers, philosophers, politicians and others who never mentioned the great sage and wonderworker Jesus Christ, even though they lived contemporaneously with or shortly after the Christian savior's purported advent.
A False Witness

eusebius church historian catholic imageDespite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.

To repeat, this passage was so completely dissected by scholars of high repute and standing--the majority of them pious Christians--that it was for decades understood by subsequent scholars as having been proved in toto a forgery, such that these succeeding scholars did not even mention it, unless to acknowledge it as false. (In addition to being repetitious, numerous quotes will be presented here, because a strong show of rational consensus is desperately needed when it comes to matters of blind, unscientific and irrational faith.) The scholars who so conclusively proved the TF a forgery made their mark at the end of the 18th century and into the 20th, when a sudden reversal was implemented, with popular opinion hemming and hawing its way back first to the "partial interpolation theory" and in recent times, among the third-rate apologists, to the notion that the whole TF is "genuine." As Earl Doherty says, in "Josephus Unbound":

"Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction. Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (1956, p.17), calls it 'a pure Christian forgery.' Before him, Lardner, Harnack and Schurer, along with others, declared it entirely spurious. Today, most serious scholars have decided the passage is a mix: original parts rubbing shoulders with later Christian additions."

Bishop Rev. Nathaniel Lardner imageThe earlier scholarship that proved the entire TF to be fraudulent was determined by intense scrutiny by some of the most erudite, and mainly Christian, writers of the time, in a number of countries, their works written in a variety of languages, but particularly German, French and English. Their general conclusions, as elucidated by Christian authority Dr. Lardner, and related here by the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled (c. 1842), include the following reasons for doubting the authenticity of the TF as a whole:

"Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. The arguments of the 'Christian Ajax,' even Lardner himself, against it are these: 'It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.'" (CMU, 47)

Hence, by the 1840's, when the anonymous author of Christian Mythology Unveiled wrote, the Testimonium Flavanium was already "universally acknowledged to be a forgery."

Origen church fatherThe pertinent remarks by the highly significant Church father Origen (c. 185-c.254) appear in his Contra Celsus, Book I, Chapter XLVII:

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice" (Emphasis added)

Here, in Origen's words, is the assertion that Josephus, who discusses more than a dozen Jesuses, did not consider any of them to be "the Christ." This fact proves that the same phrase in the TF is spurious. Furthermore, Origen does not even intimate the presence of the rest of the TF. Concerning Origen and the TF, Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

According to the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled ("CMU"), this Vossius mentioned by a number of writers as having possessed a copy of Josephus's Antiquities lacking the TF is "I. Vossius," whose works appeared in Latin. Unfortunately, none of these writers includes a citation as to where exactly the assertion may be found in Vossius's works. Moreover, the Vossius in question seems to be Gerardus, rather than his son, Isaac, who was born in the seventeenth century.
Church Fathers Ignorant of Josephus Passage

In any event, as G.A. Wells points out in The Jesus Myth, not only do several Church fathers from the second, third and early fourth centuries have no apparent knowledge of the TF, but even after Eusebius suddenly "found" it in the first half of the fourth century, several other fathers into the fifth "often cite Josephus, but not this passage." (Wells, JM, 202) In the 5th century, Church father Jerome (c. 347-c.419) cited the TF once, with obvious disinterest, as if he knew it was fraudulent. In addition to his reference to the TF, in his Letter XXII. to Eustochium, Jerome made the following audacious claim:

"Josephus, himself a Jewish writer, asserts that at the Lord's crucifixion there broke from the temple voices of heavenly powers, saying: 'Let us depart hence.'"

Saint Jerome imageEither Jerome fabricated this alleged Josephus quote, or he possessed a unique copy of the Jewish historian's works, in which this assertion had earlier been interpolated. In any case, Jerome's claim constitutes "pious fraud," one of many committed by Christian proponents over the centuries, a rampant practice, in fact, that must be kept in mind when considering the authenticity of the TF.

Following is a list of important Christian authorities who studied and/or mentioned Josephus but not the Jesus passage:

*
Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
*
Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch--no mention of the TF.
*
Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.
*
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school, says nothing about the TF.
* Origen (c. 185-c. 254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."
* Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
* The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF.
* Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert--no mention of the TF.
* Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)--no mention of TF.
* Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.
* Methodius, saint of the 9th century--even at this late date there were apparently copies of Josephus without the TF, as Methodius makes no mention of it.
* Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople, not a word about the TF, again indicating copies of Josephus devoid of the passage, or, perhaps, a rejection of it because it was understood to be fraudulent.

Arguments Against Authenticity Further Elucidated

When the evidence is scientifically examined, it becomes clear that the entire Josephus passage regarding Jesus was forged, likely by Church historian Eusebius, during the fourth century. In "Who on Earth was Jesus Christ?" David Taylor details the reasons why the TF in toto must be deemed a forgery, most of which arguments, again, were put forth by Dr. Lardner:

*
"It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
*
"Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
*
"Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
*
"The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
*
"The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
*
"It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
*
"It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
*
"Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
*
"Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
*
"This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."

When the earliest Greek texts are analyzed, it is obvious that the Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the flow of the primary material and that the style of the language is different from that of Josephus. There is other evidence that the TF never appeared in the original Josephus. As Wells says:

"As I noted in The Jesus Legend, there is an ancient table of contents in the Antiquities which omits all mention of the Testimonium. Feldman (in Feldman and Hata, 1987, p. 57) says that this table is already mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version of the Antiquities, and he finds it 'hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian summarizing the work.'" (Wells, JM, 201)

Flavius Josephus imageAlso, Josephus goes into long detail about the lives of numerous personages of relatively little import, including several Jesuses. It is inconceivable that he would devote only a few sentences to someone even remotely resembling the character found in the New Testament. If the gospel tale constituted "history," Josephus's elders would certainly be aware of Jesus's purported assault on the temple, for example, and the historian, who was obviously interested in instances of messianic agitation, would surely have reported it, in detail. Moreover, the TF refers to Jesus as a "wise man"--this phrase is used by Josephus in regard to only two other people, out of hundreds, i.e., the patriarchs Joseph and Solomon. If Josephus had thought so highly of an historical Jesus, he surely would have written more extensively about him. Yet, he does not. Lest it be suggested that Josephus somehow could have been ignorant of the events in question, the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Flavius Josephus") says:

"... Josephus...was chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be commander-in-chief in Galilee. As such he established in every city throughout the country a council of judges, the members of which were recruited from those who shared his political views."

Indeed, Josephus was a well-educated Jew who lived in the precise area where the gospel tale was said to have taken place, as did his parents, the latter at the very time of Christ's alleged advent. It was Josephus's passion to study the Jewish people and their history; yet, other than the obviously bogus TF, and the brief "James passage" mentioned by Taylor above, it turns out that in his voluminous works Josephus discussed neither Christ nor Christianity. Nor does it make any sense that the prolific Jewish writer would not detail the Christian movement itself, were Christians extant at the time in any significant numbers.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (CE), which tries to hedge its bet about the Josephus passage, is nevertheless forced to admit: "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." In the same entry, CE also confirms that Josephus's writings were used extensively by the early Christian fathers, such as Jerome, Ambrose and Chrystostom; nevertheless, as noted, except for Jerome, they never mention the TF.

Regarding the TF, as well as the James passage, which possesses the phrase James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, Jewish writer ben Yehoshua makes some interesting assertions:

"Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief."

Yehoshua claims that the 12th century historian Gerald of Wales related that a "Master Robert of the Priory of St. Frideswide at Oxford examined many Hebrew copies of Josephus and did not find the 'testimony about Christ,' except for two manuscripts where it appeared [to Robert, evidently] that the testimony had been present but scratched out." Gerardus Vossius imageYehoshua states that, since "scratching out" requires the removal of the top layers, the deleted areas in these mere two of the many copies likely did not provide any solid evidence that it was the TF that had been removed. Apologists will no doubt insist that these Hebrew texts are late copies and that Jewish authorities had the TF removed. This accusation of mutilating an author's work, of course, can easily be turned around on the Christians. Also, considering that Vossius purportedly possessed a copy of the Antiquities without the TF, it is quite possible that there were "many Hebrew copies" likewise devoid of the passage.
Higher Criticism by Christian Authorities

The many reasons for concluding the Josephus passage to be a forgery have been expounded upon by numerous well-respected authorities, so much so that such individuals have been compelled by honesty and integrity to dismiss the Testimonium in toto as a forgery. In The Christ, John Remsburg relates the opinions of critics of the TF from the past couple of centuries, the majority of whom were Christian authorities, including and especially Dr. Lardner, who said:

"A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist (Lardner's Works, vol. I, chap. iv)."

Yet, the TF was overlooked and neglected by early Christian writers. In other words, they never cited it because it didn't exist.

Bishop William Warburton imageAnother authority, Bishop Warburton, called the TF a "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." Remsburg further related the words of the "Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England," who stated:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject...."

In addition, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould remarked:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. I, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. I)."

Remsburg also recounts:

"Cannon Farrar, who has written an ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious' (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

"The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: 'That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.'"

And so on, with similar opinions by Christian scholars such as Theodor Keim, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas and Dr. Alexander Campbell. By the time of Dr. Chalmers and others, the TF had been so discredited that these authorities understood it as a forgery in toto and did not even consider it for a moment as "evidence" of Jesus's existence and/or divinity. In fact, these subsequent defenders of the faith, knowing the TF to be a forgery, repeatedly commented on how disturbing it was that Josephus did not mention Jesus.

In the modern apologist work The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel relates a passage from a novel published in 1979 by Charles Templeton, in which the author states, regarding Jesus, "There isn't a single word about him in secular history. Not a word. No mention of him by the Romans. Not so much as a reference by Josephus." (Strobel, 101) Strobel then reports the response by Christian professor Edwin Yamauchi, who claimed that Templeton was mistaken and that there was a reference to Jesus by Josephus. Yamauchi's fatuous response ignores, purposefully or otherwise, the previous ironclad arguments about which Templeton was apparently educated, such that he made such a statement. In other words, Templeton was evidently aware of the purported reference in Josephus but had understood by the arguments of the more erudite, earlier Christian authorities that it was a forgery; hence, there is "not so much as a reference by Josephus." In this facile manner of merely ignoring or dismissing the earlier scholarship, modern believers cling to the long-dismissed TF in order to convince themselves of the unbelievable.

For a more modern criticism, in The Jesus Puzzle and his online article "Josephus Unbound," secularist and classicist Earl Doherty leaves no stone unturned in demolishing the TF, permitting no squirming room for future apologists, whose resort to the TF will show, as it has done in the past, how hopeless is their plight in establishing an "historical Jesus." Concerning the use of Josephus as "evidence" of Jesus's existence, Doherty remarks:

"[I]n the absence of any other supporting evidence from the first century that in fact the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels clearly existed, Josephus becomes the slender thread by which such an assumption hangs. And the sound and fury and desperate manoeuverings which surround the dissection of those two little passages becomes a din of astonishing proportions. The obsessive focus on this one uncertain record is necessitated by the fact that the rest of the evidence is so dismal, so contrary to the orthodox picture. If almost everything outside Josephus points in a different direction, to the essential fiction of the Gospel picture and its central figure, how can Josephus be made to bear on his shoulders, through two passages whose reliability has thus far remained unsettled, the counterweight to all this other negative evidence?"

Other modern authors who criticize the TF include The Jesus Mysteries authors Freke and Gandy, who conclude:

"Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed to shore up their Literalist interpretation of the gospels. This, as we would see repeatedly, was a common practice." (Freke and Gandy, 137)

Despite the desperate din, a number of other modern writers remain in concurrence with the earlier scholarship and likewise consider the TF in toto a fraud.
The Suspect: Eusebius (c. 264-340)

Eusebius church father catholic historian imageIn addition to acknowledging the spuriousness of the Josephus passage, many authorities quoted here agreed with the obvious: Church historian Eusebius was the forger of the entire Testimonium Flavianium. Various reasons have already been given for making such a conclusion. In "Did Jesus Really Live?" Marshall Gauvin remarks:

"Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room."

Regarding the absence of the TF in the writings of earlier Christian fathers and its sudden appearance with Eusebius, CMU says:

"it has been observed that the famous passage which we find in Josephus, about Jesus Christ, was never mentioned or alluded to in any way whatever by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third centuries; nor until the time of Eusebius, 'when it was first quoted by himself [sic].' The truth is, none of these fathers could quote or allude to a passage which did not exist in their times; but was to all points short of absolutely certain, forged and interpolated by Eusebius, as suggested by Gibbon and others. Even the redoubtable Lardner has pronounced this passage to be a forgery." (CMU, 79-80)

Moreover, the word "tribe" in the TF is another clue that the passage was forged by Eusebius, who is fond of the word, while Josephus uses it only in terms of ethnicity, never when describing a religious sect. Kerry Shirts adds to this particular point:

"Eusebius studied Josephus diligently, and could thus masquerade as he, except when he used the word 'tribe' to describe the Christians. All the literature from the Ante-Nicene Fathers show they never used the word 'tribe' or 'race' with reference to the Christians, was [sic] either by the Fathers or when they quoted non-Christian writers. Tertullian, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Rufinus--none use 'tribe' to refer to Christians. Eusebius is the first to start the practice."

In Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins, Edwin Johnson remarked that the fourth century was "the great age of literary forgery, the extent of which has yet to be exposed." He further commented that "not until the mass of inventions labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed, can the pretended references to Christians in Pagan writers of the first three centuries be recognized for the forgeries they are." Indeed, Eusebius's character has been assailed repeatedly over the centuries, with him being called a "luminous liar" and "unreliable." Like so many others, Drews likewise criticizes Eusebius, stating that various of the Church historian's references "must be regarded with the greatest suspicion." As Drews relates, Swiss historian Jakob Burckhardt (1818-1897) declared Eusebius to be "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." (Drews, 32/fn) Eusebius's motives were to empower the Catholic Church, and he did not fail to use "falsifications, suppressions, and fictions" to this end.
Conclusion: Josephus No Evidence of Jesus

Even if the Josephus passage were authentic, which we have essentially proved it not to be, it nevertheless would represent not an eyewitness account but rather a tradition passed along for at least six decades, long after the purported events. Hence, the TF would possess little if any value in establishing an "historical" Jesus. In any event, it is quite clear that the entire passage in Josephus regarding Christ, the Testimonium Flavianum, is spurious, false and a forgery. Regarding the TF, Remsburg summarizes:

"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned....

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines...."

The dismissal of the passage in Josephus regarding Jesus is not based on "faith" or "belief" but on intense scientific scrutiny and reasoning. Such investigation has been confirmed repeatedly by numerous scholars who were mostly Christian. The Testimonium Flavianum, Dr. Lardner concluded in none too forceful words, "ought, therefore...to be discarded from any place among the evidences of Christianity." With such outstanding authority and so many scientific reasons, we can at last dispense with the pretentious charade of wondering if the infamous passage in the writings of Josephus called the Testimonium Flavianum is forged and who fabricated it.

Excerpted from Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S.

Sources:

Anonymous, Christian Mythology Unveiled, 1842
ben Yehoshua, mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
Catholic Encyclopedia, "Flavius Josephus," www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm
Charlesworth, James H., http://www.mystae.com/restricted/ref...h/sources.html
Doherty, Earl, pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
Doherty, Earl, The Jesus Puzzle, Canadian Humanist, Ottawa, 1999
Drews, Arthur, Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, Joseph McCabe, tr., Watts, London, 1912
Freke, Timothy and Gandy, Peter, The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers, NY, 1999
Gauvin, Marshall, http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...lly_live_/html
Jerome, www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm
Johnson, Edwin, Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins, www.christianism.com/articles/1.html
Josephus, The Complete Works of, Wm. Whitson, tr., Kregel, MI, 1981
Kirby, Peter, home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/josephus.html
Origen, www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-55.htm
Oser, Scott, http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/hojfaq.html
Remsburg, John, The Christ, www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm
Shirts, Kerry, www.cyberhighway.net/~shirtail/jesusand.htm
Stein, Dr. Gordon, http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ein/jesus.html
Strobel, Lee, The Case for Christ, Zondervan, MI, 1998
Taylor, David, www.mmsweb.com/eykiw/relig/npref.txt
Wells, G.A., The Jesus Legend, Open Court, Chicago, 1997
Wells, G.A., The Jesus Myth, Open Court, Chicago, 1999

[baaroar]

5. Plini nje zyrtar qeveritar romak flet per nje grup te krishteresh qe adhuronin Krishtin dhe mblidheshin sebashku dhe kryenin sherbesat perkujtuese. ( Letra per Plini, perkthyer nga W. Melmoth, Vell 2, X96.)

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)

In addition to the palpably bogus passage in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus called the "Testimonium Flavianum" is another of the pitiful "references" dutifully trotted out by apologists to prove the existence of Jesus Christ: To wit, a short passage in the works of the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. While proconsul of Bithynia, a province in the northwest of Asia Minor, Pliny purportedly wrote a letter in 110 CE to the Emperor Trajan requesting his assistance in determining the proper punishment for "Christiani" who were causing trouble and would not renounce "Christo" as their god or bow down to the image of the Emperor. These recalcitrant Christiani, according to the Pliny letter, met "together before daylight" and sang "hymns with responses to Christ as a god," binding themselves "by a solemn institution, not to any wrong act." Regarding this letter, Rev. Robert Taylor remarks:

If this letter be genuine, these nocturnal meetings were what no prudent government could allow; they fully justify the charges of Caecilius in Minutius Felix, of Celsus in Origen, and of Lucian, that the primitive Christians were a skulking, light-shunning, secret, mystical, freemasonry sort of confederation, against the general welfare and peace of society.

Serapis the ChrestosTaylor also comments that, at the time this letter was purportedly written, "Christians" were considered to be followers of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis and that "the name of Christ [was] common to the whole rabblement of gods, kings, and priests." Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated:

"The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money."

It is thus possible that the "Christos" or "Anointed" god Pliny's "Christiani" were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE. In any case, this god "Christos" was not a man who had been crucified in Judea.

Moreover, like his earlier incarnation Osiris, Serapis—both popular gods in the Roman Empire—was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Indeed, Osiris was styled "Chrestos," centuries before his Jewish copycat Jesus was ever conceived....

In any event, the value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed. As Taylor remarks, "We have the name of Christ, and nothing else but the name, where the name of Apollo or Bacchus would have filled up the sense quite as well." Taylor then casts doubt on the authenticity of the letter as a whole, recounting the work of German critics, who "have maintained that this celebrated letter is another instance to be added to the long list of Christian forgeries..." One of these German luminaries, Dr. Semler of Leipsic provided "nine arguments against its authenticity..." He also notes that the Pliny epistle is quite similar to that allegedly written by "Tiberianus, Governor of Syria" to Trajan, which has been universally denounced as a forgery.

Also, like the Testimonium Flavianum, Pliny's letter is not quoted by any early Church father, including Justin Martyr. Tertullian briefly mentions its existence, noting that it refers to terrible persecutions of Christians. However, the actual text used today comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century, Iucundus of Verona, whose composition apparently was based on Tertullian's assertions. Concurring that the Pliny letter is suspicious, Drews terms "doubtful" Tertullian's "supposed reference to it." Drews then names several authorities who likewise doubted its authenticity, "either as a whole or in material points," including Semler, Aub, Havet, Hochart, Bruno Bauer and Edwin Johnson. Citing the work of Hochart specifically, Drews pronounces Pliny's letter "in all probability" a "later Christian forgery." Even if it is genuine, Pliny's letter is useless in determining any "historical" Jesus.
///
Edhe burimet historike për heronjtë mitikë të lashtësisë janë më të besueshme se ato për Jezusin e Nazaretit.

[VOLSIV]

Epo nga injorantet duhet te presesh cdo lloj pyetje dhe eshte detyre e njerezve te besimeve qe ti ndricojne.

Te pershendes

>>> Une bera timen edhe pse e dija fare mire reagimin tend.
> Eshte goxha e lodhshme te flasesh kur dikush ka ndermend vetem te tallet prandaj nuk po vazhdoj kot me shpjegime mbi komentet e bera.
> Te pershendes edhe une.

[EuroStar1]

>>> Une bera timen edhe pse e dija fare mire reagimin tend.
> Eshte goxha e lodhshme te flasesh kur dikush ka ndermend vetem te tallet prandaj nuk po vazhdoj kot me shpjegime mbi komentet e bera.
> Te pershendes edhe une.

Me vjen keq qe ti me ke keqkuptuar, une nuk kisha per qellim te tallesha, por thjeshte tu pergjigja per cfar kishe shkruar.
Une i isha drejtuar albanit1 sepse ishim duke diskutuar dhe ai me sa duket nuk mundi ti pergjigjej pyetjeve te mija dhe pastaj u pergjigje ti dhe bere shum mire. Me aq sa dije ti u pergjigje, nese ke dicka per te shtuar une te mirpres per sqarime te hollsishme.
Nje besimtar qe don te perhape fjalen e hyit , nuk duhet te lodhet kaq shpejt me ne qe nuk e njohim fjalen e perendise.
Te pershendes