Replies

Like a lot of Jews, he has chosen to ignore the the many admirable qualities of his religous tradition and instead practice a bastardized form of worship based on a persecution fixation.

This is nothing but a personal attack. You do not know anything about my religious practice, nor is it your business.

It is OK for you to say Jesus was the Messiah, but not OK for me to disagree. Is that it?

Rather than studying the Talumd, which fortells Christ,

Huh?

My favorite moment of ignorance by him is when he points claims Josephus was a forgery.

Another misquote by you (big surprise). I did not say ALL of Josephus is a forgery, I said the passages about Jesus are a forgery. This is widely believed by historians. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that authenticity Josephus' references to Jesus is in dispute.

Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that Josephus was handed down and preserved by both the Greeks and the Arabs, and Jesus appears in both written accounts independantly.

The reference to Jesus in the Greek copies of Josephus is much different than in the Arabic copies, which leads scholars to question its authenticity.

This is nothing but a personal attack. You do not know anything about my religious practice, nor is it your business.

It is OK for you to say Jesus was the Messiah, but not OK for me to disagree. Is that it?

I know what I see. You have invested a great deal of time in attacking Jesus Christ. To what end? What does it get you? Nobody is demanding that you accept the Truth. It is ok for you to say or think anything you want. But you better be right, and you better make valid points. You fail to do so, as we will see.

The dispute is as to whether Josepus called Jesus the Son of God, not as to whether he mentions Him at all. He does, there's no denying it. Though Josephus is useful for putting Christ's life into historical context, Christianity does not have much other use for him. He was not a follower.

The reference to Jesus in the Greek copies of Josephus is much different than in the Arabic copies, which leads scholars to question its authenticity.

You made the claim that Christ was not an historical person. If Christ were not an historical person, there would be no reason for the arabs to insert Him into the story in the same place independantly. Since He is there for the arabs, He can not have been a Roman fabrication. Therefore, He existed. End of Story.