felixomor:


Wow for real?
Sorry ignorant one, u didnt list all.
Just use your google and get contemporary historians who lived in Jesus era.

Besides, i thought your dictionary definition of "contemporary" had multiple meanings??
Anyway, its you so I am not surprised.

Get educated.

Sure, there were historians that were alive during the supposed life of Jesus, those were his contemporaries, but guess what?
None wrote about him, zero, zilch, nada. Not even one.
The ones who wrote about him were not his contemporaries.
If you have a name drop it. It's not a matter of noise or argument.
Put me to shame.

CatfishBilly:

Sure, there were historians that were alive during the supposed life of Jesus, those were his contemporaries, but guess what?
None wrote about him, zero, zilch, nada. Not even one.
The ones who wrote about him were not his contemporaries.
If you have a name drop it. It's not a matter of noise or argument.
Put me to shame.

You go wait tire. He can't drop any name because there is non to drop.

CatfishBilly:

Sure, there were historians that were alive during the supposed life of Jesus, those were his contemporaries, but guess what?
None wrote about him, zero, zilch, nada. Not even one.
The ones who wrote about him were not his contemporaries.
If you have a name drop it. It's not a matter of noise or argument.
Put me to shame.

1. Firstly, u have refused to answer a simple question, does your definition of "contemporary" have multiple meanings?

2. Secondly, Please state it categorically,
If I bring it out, will you admit your Ignorance?

yes or No

felixomor:


1. Firstly, u have refused to answer a simple question, does your definition of "contemporary" have multiple meanings?

2. Secondly, Please state it categorically,
If I bring it out, will you admit your Ignorance?

yes or No

Oga, I have given you the Oxford dictionary definition of contemporary, I even added a screenshot.
If that one is not good enough for you, then I can't help more than that.

Yes Felix, I will admit my Ignorance. E don tey we you want hear am.

CatfishBilly:

Oga, I have given you the Oxford dictionary definition of contemporary, I even added a screenshot.

LMAO
You people are so funny
Keep pretending like u didnt get the question
I will also play along

CatfishBilly:

If that one is not good enough for you, then I can't help more than that.

Keep playing
We will be here...

CatfishBilly:

Yes Felix, I will admit my Ignorance. E don tey we you want hear am.

Have u finished playing?

felixomor:

LMAO
You people are so funny
Keep pretending like u didnt get the question
I will also play along



Keep playing
We will be here...




Have u finished playing?

Like dalaman said, I would wait forever, it wasn't wide off the mark, it was spot on.
After admitting my ignorance, still nothing to show.
Smh, felixomor.

Those internal feelings when my doctor is pulling so hard to become relevant and intelligent

CatfishBilly:

[s]Like dalaman said, I would wait forever, it wasn't wide off the mark, it was spot on.
After admitting my ignorance, still nothing to show.
Smh, felixomor.[/s]

Hehehehehe
Have u finished playing?

Just tell me when u r done.

CatfishBilly:

Like dalaman said, I would wait forever, it wasn't wide off the mark, it was spot on.
After admitting my ignorance, still nothing to show.
Smh, felixomor.

Our resident imaginary doctor.

dalaman:


Our resident imaginary doctor.

......
Hope u r having fun.....?

Sarassin:


I agree with you that Christians do not need Josephus to prove that Jesus existed. In the very best rendering of the "testimonium" it still remains anecdotal, i.e it is not an eyewitness account. In my view there are more compelling histography about the life of Jesus out there if that is what is being sought. Where Josephus excels is in providing the social and political background to events that served as a backdrop to many of the first century biblical accounts.

Of course a good deal of the passage does read like it was written by Josephus, they are mainly his words after-all, but we do know that second century early church fathers saw to it that virtually no copies of Josephus' early works remained un-edited and at the forefront of all of this was none other than the ubiquitous Eusebius.

Lest we forget, it was Eusebius who reputedly discovered the putative "letters of Jesus" to the king of Edessas (Abgar) and reputedly carried out the translation from Syriac to Greek, look how that turned out.

I'm unaware of this, do u have a source to this claim?

Na wa for this felixomor guy sef.

BTW,the earliest copy of Testimonium Flavianum(the passage where it is believed Jesus was referenced by Josephus), was from Eusebius(the popular con man).
This should answer the OP question.

4kings:
Na wa for this felixomor guy sef.

BTW,the earliest copy of Testimonium Flavianum(the passage where it is believed Jesus was referenced by Josephus), was from Eusebius(the popular con man).
This should answer the OP question.

u have come too?

Please do have evidence that u r not a con person yourself?
Please give me that evidence

felixomor:


u have come too?

Please do have evidence that u r not a con person yourself?
Please give me that evidence

I don't have evidence for that...

So do you

4kings:

I don't have evidence for that...

So do you

Oh good,
So there is no reason to take you or any of your claims seriously.
Finito.

felixomor:


Oh good,
So there is no reason to take you or any of your claims seriously.
Finito.

My claims!
These are not claims, there are facts.
I'm telling you facts.

4kings:

My claims!
These are not claims, there are facts.
I'm telling you facts.

Do you know what facts are?
No you don't.
If u did u will know that there are multiple certified and confirmed secular historian accounts of Jesus Christ.
There is even more of him than that of Emperor Caesar of Ancient Rome.

Thats fact.
Dig boy?

4kings:
Na wa for this felixomor guy sef.

BTW,the earliest copy of Testimonium Flavianum(the passage where it is believed Jesus was referenced by Josephus), was from Eusebius(the popular con man).
This should answer the OP question.

Its funny how you call Eusebius a con man because a few historians told you so . But reject the other side who say that the things are valid and true . The truth is skepticism is all about questioning things that don't appeal to us; if something no longer appeals to you then one questions it . You only see what you want to see .

4kings 4kings aka The right hand man of Eusebius . The man who dined with Eusebius and saw him for what he truly is .

KingEbukasBlog:


Its funny how you call Eusebius a con man because historians told you so . But reject the other side who say that the things are valid and true . The truth is skepticism is all about questioning things that don't appeal to us; if something no longer appeals to you then one questions it . You only see what you want to see .

4kings 4kings aka The right hand man of Eusebius . The man who dined with Eusebius and saw him for what he truly is .

LOL
When atheists attack people who God used to write the bible, we are not too surprised.

The fact that they can go all the length to even attack worldly historians who wrote about Christ, clearly shows the ridiculousness of atheism.

Felixomor, I'm still waiting for the contemporary historians that wrote about Jesus.
Maybe ask KingEbukasBlog for help.

CatfishBilly:
[s]Felixomor, I'm still waiting for the contemporary historians that wrote about Jesus.
Maybe ask KingEbukasBlog for help.[/s]

Are u done playing?
Are u ready to answer my question now?

Richirich713:


I'm unaware of this, do u have a source to this claim?

There are no original surviving copies of Josephus’ “Antiquities” Jewish people refused to preserve them because they considered Josephus a traitor, therefore all extant copies derive from Christian sources and none of these surviving copies made by Christian monks can be dated to any earlier than the 11th century.

The earliest known reference to Josephus' work is found in the writings of the third century Christian author and allegorist Origen, who refers to Josephus' record of "the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)" in Book I, Chapter XLVII of Against Celsus, This included Origen's observations that Josephus did not recognize Jesus as "the Christ" when mentioning him in his book the "Antiquities of the Jews".

The Testmonium as we have it today first appears in the the writings of the early church father Eusebius (c. AD 263–339). For 200 years church fathers who were aware of Josephus’ writings never mention this passage once. According to the noted scholar Louis H Feldman (Josephus’ interpretation of the bible) no fewer than 11 early church fathers prior to or contemporary to Eusebius ever make a reference to the Testimonium this included the likes of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the aforementioned Origen. In fact it is not until the fourth century that a copy of "Antiquities" appears with the Testimonium in it. John Chrysostom, in his defense of Christianity rejected using the Testimonium as did Photius, even though he wrote three works about Josephus.

Sarassin:


There are no original surviving copies of Josephus’ “Antiquities” Jewish people refused to preserve them because they considered Josephus a traitor, therefore all extant copies derive from Christian sources and none of these surviving copies made by Christian monks can be dated to any earlier than the 11th century.

The earliest known reference to Josephus' work is found in the writings of the third century Christian author and allegorist Origen, who refers to Josephus' record of "the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)" in Book I, Chapter XLVII of Against Celsus, This included Origen's observations that Josephus did not recognize Jesus as "the Christ" when mentioning him in his book the "Antiquities of the Jews".

The Testmonium as we have it today first appears in the the writings of the early church father Eusebius (c. AD 263–339). For 200 years church fathers who were aware of Josephus’ writings never mention this passage once. According to the noted scholar Louis H Feldman (Josephus’ interpretation of the bible) no fewer than 11 early church fathers prior to or contemporary to Eusebius ever make a reference to the Testimonium this included the likes of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the aforementioned Origen. In fact it is not until the fourth century that a copy of "Antiquities" appears with the Testimonium in it. John Chrysostom, in his defense of Christianity rejected using the Testimonium as did Photius, even though he wrote three works about Josephus.

There's no reason why church fathers should have mention the passage, especially if we consider the pared-down version of the Testimonium scholars generally consider to be the original(or very close to the original). I also don't consider it to be a problem if Eusebius did edit the passage, since I subscribe to view that the passage was altered by a Christian (probably scribe), but the core message still comes from Josephus.

Richirich713:


There's no reason why church fathers should have mention the passage, especially if we consider the pared-down version of the Testimonium scholars generally consider to be the original(or very close to the original). I also don't consider it to be a problem if Eusebius did edit the passage, since I subscribe to view that the passage was altered by a Christian (probably scribe), but the core message still comes from Josephus.

Lying for Jesus you mean?

Richirich713:


There's no reason why church fathers should have mention the passage, especially if we consider the pared-down version of the Testimonium scholars generally consider to be the original(or very close to the original). I also don't consider it to be a problem if Eusebius did edit the passage, since I subscribe to view that the passage was altered by a Christian (probably scribe), but the core message still comes from Josephus.

All we can be certain of is that Origen confirms that Josephus does not believe that Jesus was the “Christ”. It is inconceivable that Justin Martyr would not mention the passage in his “Dialogue with Trypho” or that Irenaeus would not use the passage in support of Christianity in his “Against the heresies” or Clement of Alexandria for that matter. They all had access to the as yet un-redacted un- interpolated writings of Josephus-yet they maintained silence in the face of great heresies, that is my point.

CatfishBilly:

Lying for Jesus you mean?

Dishonest actually, which is why I would condemn such an act since it goes against Jesus teachings. What is more bothering to me really is when atheists just lie and mislead people deliberately. It's really just lying for atheism, check nairaland, you'll see a lot of it.

Sarassin:


All we can be certain of is that Origen confirms that Josephus does not believe that Jesus was the “Christ”. It is inconceivable that Justin Martyr would not mention the passage in his “Dialogue with Trypho” or that Irenaeus would not use the passage in support of Christianity in his “Against the heresies” or Clement of Alexandria for that matter. They all had access to the as yet un-redacted un- interpolated writings of Josephus-yet they maintained silence in the face of great heresies, that is my point.

I don't get your point, Josephus original reference to Jesus never claim he was the Christ, all Josephus said was he was called that. Also why would Justin Martyr quote Josephus to prove Jesus was the messiah to a jew when the Jews considered Josephus a traitor? There isn't really any use for quoting Josephus for apologetic concerns regarding Jesus.

Richirich713:


I don't get your point, Josephus original reference to Jesus never claim he was the Christ, all Josephus said was he was called that. Also why would Justin Martyr quote Josephus to prove Jesus was the messiah to a jew when the Jews considered Josephus a traitor? There isn't really any use for quoting Josephus for apologetic concerns regarding Jesus.

Justin Martyr as well as other early church fathers faced the constant accusations that Jesus was not the Messiah. The Testimonium by Josephus seemingly identifying Jesus as the "Christ" and such an attestation by one who had no inherent Christian bias would make a very powerful response to these accusations had they actually had the Eusebius version as Christians today would have us believe. We don't know what the original version states, clearly it was inconsequential enough that Justin Martyr et al never mentioned it.

There isn't really any use for quoting Josephus for apologetic concerns regarding Jesus

I agree, apparently Christians do not.

Sarassin:


Justin Martyr as well as other early church fathers faced the constant accusations that Jesus was not the Messiah. The Testimonium by Josephus seemingly identifying Jesus as the "Christ" and such an attestation by one who had no inherent Christian bias would make a very powerful response to these accusations had they actually had the Eusebius version as Christians today would have us believe. We don't know what the original version states, clearly it was inconsequential enough that Justin Martyr et al never mentioned it.

I guess we then just disagree, I don't see any reason why Josephus was so much a powerful response by Christian apologists, the Jews after all didn't consider him to be a prophet, even considered him to be a traitor.

Also the Jews would have not considered Josephus a non-christian if he said Jesus was the Christ, they would consider him to be a heretical Jew, which fits well with him being a traitor. So a church father quoting him as an authority to prove to a jew Jesus was the messiah doesn't seem to be very probable.

Sarassin:

I agree, apparently Christians do not.

I'm referring to the ancient christians who allegedly would have use him to prove that he was the messiah, not christians who use his historical writings today to put another nail in the coffin regarding Jesus existence. Even Secular historians use Josephus for this, Bart Ehrman for instance.

felixomor:


Do you know what facts are?
No you don't.
If u did u will know that there are multiple certified and confirmed secular historian accounts of Jesus Christ.
There is even more of him than that of Emperor Caesar of Ancient Rome.

Thats fact.
Dig boy?

Is this guy OK at all...
Just the engraving on the roman coins and sculptures of him done by his "CONTEMPORARIES" should show you how silly your argument is.

You better go learn some history, before you start talking nonsense.
If you had mentioned Alexander the Great, you PROBABLY would have had a chance with the point you were trying to make.

4kings:

Is this guy OK at all...
Just the engraving on the roman coins and sculptures of him done by his [b]"CONTEMPORARIES" should show you how silly your argument is.
[/b]
You better go learn some history, before you start talking nonsense.
If you had mentioned Alexander the Great, you PROBABLY would have had a chance with the point you were trying to make.

LMAO
You are not ok
Who told you archeology has not discovered Jesus Christ engraved coins before.?

You are dull sha.
Chaii....

Even at that, so only coins is the reason for your argument......
KingEbukasblog, come and see .......

LOL

KingEbukasBlog:


Its funny how you call Eusebius a con man because a few historians told you so . But reject the other side who say that the things are valid and true . The truth is skepticism is all about questioning things that don't appeal to us; if something no longer appeals to you then one questions it . You only see what you want to see .

4kings 4kings aka The right hand man of Eusebius . The man who dined with Eusebius and saw him for what he truly is .

I'm making deductions from historical pieces.
I know you won't understand this, just like you can't fathom naijadeyhia's case, or the absurdity behind Pastor Lord chosen miracles.