By: LARRY SITES Re: Christian lies 1 LS+gt; Constantine was the first Roman emperor to mak

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: LARRY SITES Re: Christian lies 1 LS> Constantine was the first Roman emperor to make christianity LS> the defacto state religion. In today's posts you can see LS> how he was lied to, fed false pagan Sibyl oracles, told LS> that Pilate recorded Jesus resurrection in Roman archives, LS> shown the miraculous origin of the Septugant scriptures, and LS> entrusted the production of state bibles to a man who MK> Jesus's resurrection has been documented, I suggest you find it. If it was so well documented, why only 300 years later, did christianities founders find it necessary to lie by forging accounts of this "resurrection" and falsely attributing them to Pilate and claiming the originals were in the Roman archives? Why did they need to tamper with what little evidence there was? FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY JOSEPHUS FORGERY TESTIFIES OF JESUS So many confessed Christian forgeries in Pagan and Christian names having been wrought to testify to Jesus Christ, it was, "one naturally expects," says CE., that a Jewish "writer so well informed as Josephus" must know and tell about Jesus; "one naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus." And with pride it pursues: "Antiquities, VIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation." It proceeds to quote the passage, which differeth only as one translation naturally differs from another, from that in the Whitson translation; so I follow CE. In Chapter iii Josephus treats of "Sedition of the Jews against Pontius Pilate"; in section 1. he relates the cause and the suppression of the mutiny, the ensigns of the army displaying the idolatrous Roman Eagle, brought into the Holy City; in section 2. he tells of the action of Pilate in bringing "a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money," thus again arousing a clash with the fanatics; "there were great numbers of them slain by this means." Passing for the moment the notorious section 3, Josephus the Jew begins section 4: "About the same time, also, another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder," which he proceeds to relate, ending the long chapter. Note that these section numbers were not put in by Josephus, but are modern editor's devices to facilitate citation, like the chapters and verses in the Bible. And now for the much-debated section, sandwiched, in a whole chapter on "Seditions of the Jews," between the accounts of two massacres of his countrymen and "another sad calamity"; and thus we read -- note the parentheses of CE. (viii, 376): -- "About this time," quotes CE., "appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him a man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men an receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (and many also of the Greeks. This was the Christ). And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him. (For He appeared to them alive on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (see. 3.) About this time, also "another sad calamity [?] put the Jews into disorder," (sec. 4). continues Josephus. CE. devotes over three long columns to the task of trying to prove that this section 3, or at least "the portions not in parentheses," -- is genuine, and was written, sometime before his death in 94 A.D., by the Jewish Pharisee, Josephus. "A testimony so important," well says CE., "could not escape the critics," -- and it has not. We cannot follow the lengthy and labored arguments; the simple reading or the section, in its bizarre context, and a moment's reflection, condemn it as a pious Christian forgery. If the Pharisee Josephus wrote that paragraph, he must have believed that Jesus was the Prophesied Messiah of his people -- "This was the Christ." Josephus is made to aver, he must then needs have been of "the tribe of Christians named after Him." But whatever Josephus may have said about Jesus is, indeed, not "a testimony so important" -- when we remember what he did aver that he saw with his own eyes; the pillar of salt into which Mrs. Lot was turned; and Eleazar the magician drawing the devil by a ring and Solomonic incantations, through the nose of one possessed, before Vespasian and all his army. If Josephus had written that he knew Jesus the Christ personally, and had personally seen him ascend into heaven through the roof of the room in Jerusalem (Mk. xvi, 19, 20), or from the open countryside by Bethany (Lk. xxiv, 50, 51), or "on the mount called Olivet" (Acts i, 9, 12), -- we should remember that pillar of salt and that devil-doctor, and smile. But, when and how did this famous passage get into The Antiquities of the Jews? it, is pertinent to ask. The first mention ever made of this passage, and its text, are in the Church History of that "very dishonest writer," Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century, -- he who forged the Letters between Abgar and Jesus, falsely declaring that he had found the original documents in the official archives, whence he had copied and translated them into his Ecclesiastical History. CE. admits, and I have the Contra Celsum here before me, -- that "the above cited passage was not known to Origen and the earlier patristic writers," -- though they copied from Josephus the forged tale of the Letter of Aristeas about the translating of the Septuagint; and "its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, vi) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them" (HE. I, ii, p. 63); and it makes the curious argument, which implies a confession: "But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ"! For a wonder, that "a writer so well informed as Josephus" should not, perhaps, know by hearsay, sixty years after Jesus Christ, some of the remarkable things circulated about him in current country-side gossip -- (if, indeed, it were then current). But the fact is, that with the exception of this one incongruous forged passage, section 3, the wonder-mongering Josephus makes not the slightest mention of his wonder-working fellow-countryman, Jesus the Christ, -- though some score of other Joshuas, or Jesuses, are recorded by him, nor does he mention any of his transcendent wonders, But, as CE. and I were saying, none of the Fathers, before Eusebius (about 324), knew or could find a word in the works of Josephus, of this momentous "testimony to Jesus," over a century after Origen. That it did not exist in the time of Origen is explicit by his own words; he cites the supposed references by Josephus to John the Baptist and to James, and expressly says that Josephus ought to have spoken of Jesus instead of James; though Origen does not correctly describe the reference to James; and the James passage, if not that also about John, has a suspicious savor of interpolation. For a clear understanding of this, I will quote the passage of Origen in his work against Celsus; it completely refutes the claim that Josephus wrote the disputed and forged section 3. Origen says: "I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew accepting John somehow as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great time after John and Jesus. 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 [said that it was 'to avenge James the Just'], 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." (Origen, Contra Celsum, I, xlvii; ANF. iv, 416.) Josephus is thus quoted as bearing witness to John the Baptist, not as the Heaven-sent "forerunner" of the Christ, but simply as a Jewish religious teacher and baptizer on his own account; and not a word by Josephus about the Christ, in whom it is admitted that he did not believe as such, nor even mentions as the most illustrious of those baptized by John, to the wondrous accompaniment of a voice from Heaven and the Holy Ghost in dove- like descent upon his head as he came up from the water. But Origen, in his effort to get some Christian testimony from him, misquotes Josephus and makes him say that John was baptizing "for the remission of sins," whereas Josephus expressly says that the efficacy of John's baptism was not for remission of sin but for the purification of the body, as any washing would be. To vindicate Josephus against Origen, the former's words are quoted. Josephus recounts the defeat of Herod by Aretas, king of Arabia Petrea; and goes on to say: -- "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another, and piety toward God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when many others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death." (Josephus, Antiq. Jews, Bk. XVIII, v, 2.) Beginning in section 4. of the same Book, and at length in various chapters, Josephus goes into details regarding Salome; but never a word of the famous dance-act and of the head of John the Baptist being brought in on a charger to gratify her murderous whim: the historical reason for the murder of John was political, not amorous or jealous, as related by Gospel-truth. Father Origen again falls into error in citing Josephus, this time in the dubious passage where Josephus, who does not believe in the Christ, yet gives him that title in speaking of the death of James. With typical clerical bent Father Origen imputes the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple to the sin of the Jews in crucifying the Christ; and says that Josephus, in seeking the cause of the disasters which befell the Holy City and people, attributes them to the killing of the Christ's brother. The Holy City and temple were destroyed in 70 A.D., which was well after the time of the supposititious James, as his demise is recorded in the suspected passage of Josephus. He related the death of Festus, which was in 62 A.D., the appointment by Nero of Albinus as his successor, and the murder of James at the instigation of the high priest Ananus, before Albinus can arrive. this sentence is to be read in the text of Josephus: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he (Ananus) assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formulated an accusation against them all breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned." (Jos., Antiq. Jews, Bk. XX, ix, i.) Bishop Eusebius cannot pass over this chance to turn another Jewish testimony for his Christ; he says that "The wiser part of the Jews were of the opinion that this -- (the killing of James) -- was the cause of the immediate siege of Jerusalem ... Josephus also has not hesitated to superadd his testimony in his works. "These things,' he says, 'happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of him that is called Christ, and whom the Jews had slain, notwithstanding his preeminent justice.'" (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Bk. II, ch. 23.) The reader may judge of the integrity of these pretended Jewish testimonies to the Baptist and to the brother of the Christ, both suspicious per se, and both falsely cited by Father Origen, who in all this could not find the famous section 3, first found a century later by Bishop Eusebius; and which Origen makes it positive Josephus had not written and could not have written. Is it a violent suspicion, and uncharitable, to suggest that the holy Bishop who forged the Letter of his Christ, and lied about finding it in the Edessa archives, really "found," in the sense of invented, or forged, the Josephus passages first heard of in his Church History? But Bishop Eusebius, with a sort of "stop thief" forethought, himself imputes forgery to those who would question or discredit his own pious inventions, while with unctuous fervor pretended truth he appeals to the wonderful "testimonies of Josephus," which he has just fabricated. After quoting and misquoting Josephus with respect to John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, he thur solemnly couches for their false witness: "When such testimony as this is transmitted to us by an historian who sprung from the Hebrews themselves, both respecting John the Baptist and our Savior, what subterfuge can be left, to prevent those from being convicted destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them?" (Eusebius, HE. I, xi.) The Bishop justly pronounces his own condemnation. This, says Gibbon, "is an example of no vulgar forgery." (Chap. xvi.) In view of the convicting circumstances, and of his notoriously bad record, it, is not uncharitable to impute this Josephus forgery to Bishop Eusebius. Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery ___


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank