What do you think? ~ Zeitgeist

[TableTiger1]

The Jesus part was contradicting. It seemed like it used Jesus as a complete myth for parts of it, but then said that Jesus brings the next age upon us. Then it skips to things attributed to Jesus as reference to astrological events. It needed to be able to link it to some giant conspiracy for astrology or something. I think it is pretty conclusive in the general history world that a man named Jesus did live around that time, so saying it was purely fabricated seems like a pretty big stretch. Now walking on water and all that goofy stuff I don't know about.

[Nortonesque]

[black_knight6]

[TableTiger1]

[black_knight6]

[TableTiger1]

[black_knight6]

[T-Rod]

[black_knight6]

[Nortonesque]

[emmasdad]

[PZ]

Totally on the side ... I stumbled across this. I hope no-one takes offence ... it actually did for me what art is supposed to do ... makes you pause and think:

[PZ]

Josephus on Jesus · Christianity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 93, the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum. Its authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved. The other passage mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. The authenticity of this latter passage has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.

[T-Rod]

[TableTiger1]