COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO BAPTISM AS A REQUIREMENT FOR SALVATION:   With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1]   SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [283B]

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:  14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  Ephesians 4:13 – 14,  [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Yes, we must work to win Almighty God’s (YHWH’s) approval and this is emphasized at Colossians 2:26 – 29, [AV] “Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:  27  To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:  28  Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:  29  Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.”   


[2]   SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO BAPTISM AS A REQUIREMENT FOR SALVATION:

Normally baptism is a necessary step of obedience for all followers of Jesus (Yeshua), but of course, this does not exclude extenuating circumstances where something else can be substituted such as the thief on the cross per Luke 23:38-43, "And there was also a superscription over him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 39 And one of the malefactors that were hanged railed on him, saying, Art not thou the Christ? save thyself and us. 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. 43 And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." (American Standard Version; ASV). I, in what I wrote, was of course referring to the general case that we fall under today of which there may also be some special cases where baptism may not be necessary even today due to extenuating circumstances such as one that was intending to get baptized in accordance with the scriptures, but gets killed before being able to do so by unforeseen circumstances. In feel this person would be counted worthy, even though he/she did not get baptized, and that their mental attitude would be counted as meeting the requirement. This especially so since Jesus (Yeshua) will be the judge per John 5:22, "For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son;" (ASV), and we have seen an example of his heartfelt understanding at John 8:3-11, "And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, 4 they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her? 6 And this they said, trying him, that they might have [whereof] to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. 9 And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. 10 And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee? 11 And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.]" (ASV). So I feel certain in extenuating circumstances exceptions would be made based on heartfelt feeling of the individual even today.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT  WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  EXAMPLE OF MISLEADING WRITINGS THAT DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN APOSTATE (COUNTERFEIT) CHRISTIANS AND GENUINE (TRUE) CHRISTIANS:.   With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1]   SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 285B]

Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.   Psalms 97:10, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

King David acknowledged this truth at 2 Samuel 22:1 - , [AV] “And David spake unto the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul:  2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;  3  The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.  4  I will call on the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.  5  When the waves of death compassed me, the floods of ungodly men made me afraid;  6  The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;  7  In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears.”  And Psalms 4:3 – 6, [AV] “But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.  4  Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.  5  Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.” 


[2]   EXAMPLE OF MISLEADING WRITINGS THAT DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN APOSTATE (COUNTERFEIT) CHRISTIANS AND GENUINE (TRUE) CHRISTIANS:

INTRODUCTION:

A long article was sent to me and it has a lot of truth with respect the apostate (counterfeit) Christians, but in no way addressed either the truth and/or reality with respect to the two paths that Christianity took. The first path which was very bad was going apostate by the so called Christians, the apostate counterfeit group, which encompasses most of Christendom, and committing many atrocities and expressing intolerance, and the second, the genuine (true) Christians, the footstep followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ which preaches only Truth per the commandment of Jesus (Yeshua) at Matthew 24:14, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), and 'cons' no one. But treat all per Jesus' (Yeshua's) guidance given at Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (AV).

Most religions of the world take a two part single path as they have some good and some bad. However, so called Christianity did NOT follow in the mold of other religions such as the Hindus, Islam, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc. Instead, so called Christianity took two different paths. These two paths are as follows:

[1] In 325 AD the greater part of the so called Christian faith went apostate to when the good favor of a pagan emperor, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun. And this branch of apostate Christians went on to commit many atrocities such as the rape of Goa, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the burning of individuals at the stake for disagreeing with them including one Bruno for simply saying that the earth revolved around the sun; whereas, they said the sun revolved around the earth.

[2] A second and much smaller group of Christians that remained genuine Christians and did NOT go apostate, but followed in the footsteps of Christ their leader and savior. These did NOT commit any atrocities.

THE MISLEADING ARTICLE WITH CORRECTION COMMENTS [[ COMMENT ]]:

Title: Unethical craft of conversion
Author: Francois Gautier
Publication: Daily Pioneer
Date: Apr 26, 2002
URL: www.dailypioneer.com/arch...am=apr2602

I was born and brought-up a Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ is an Avatar of Love, and that now more than ever, specially after the 11th September terrorist attacks on America, we need his message of compassion, charity and kindness for one another.

Many Christians have taught the world that the first precept of Christ is to look after the deprived and the needy: Missionaries, such as Father Ceyrac, a French Jesuit who has lived for more than 60 years in Chennai, have understood this principle, tending to the poorest sections of this society, while respecting their culture (Father Ceyrac, who speaks fluently Tamil and Sanskrit, often quotes from the Upanishads).

Unfortunately, there has crept in the purity of the early Christianity an exclusiveness, a feeling of sole proprietary right over God. This exclusiveness, this feeling amongst Christians, that "we are the only true religion, and all other gods are false gods", has had the most catastrophic and bloody consequences: Millions have been killed in the name of Christ, entire civilisations, such as the Atzecs and Incas, have been wiped-out, "to bring them the word of Jesus". Even Christians have savagely murdered each other, whether in France or England. One would have hoped that this intolerance, this fanatical and militant drive to convert, forcibly or otherwise, pagans to the "True" God, had ceased in this new millennium of "enlightenment". Unfortunately, it is not so. For nearly three centuries, India has been the target of a massive conversion drive. It is even more so today, as Christianity is dwindling in the West: There are less and less people going to churches and very few youth willing to become priests and nuns, without speaking of the paedophilia scandals racking the American Church. The Vatican is thus looking for new converts in the Third World, particularly in India, where people have such an innate aspiration to spirituality. Indeed, the Pope has earmarked this new millennium as "The Evangelisation of Asia". And it is in the North-East that this evangelisation is meeting with the most success. [[Note: The writer fails to define the so called Christians he is talking about as the apostate (counterfeit) Christian groups, and NOT genuine (true) footstep followers of Christ, i.e., genuine (true) Christians. Genuine (true) Christians have at no time practiced atrocities against others, but have often had atrocities committed against them by false apostate (counterfeit) Christians with some having been burnt at the stake by these apostate (counterfeit) Christians.]]


But conversions in India of low caste Hindus and tribals by Christian missionaries are sometimes nothing short of fraudulent and shameful. American, Australian, or Norwegian missionaries are investing huge amounts of money in India, which come from donation drives in their countries, where gullible Christians think their dollars or Euros are going towards uplifting "poor and uneducated Indians". It is common in Kerala, for instance, particularly in the poor coastal districts, to have "miracle boxes" put in local churches. The innocent villager writes out a paper mentioning his wish: A fishing boat, a loan for a house, fee for child's schooling... And lo, a few weeks later, the miracle happens! And, of course, the whole family converts, making others in the village follow suit! Missionaries also make extensive use of "miracle" prayer meeting trick, where a glib preacher persuades naive tribals that a miracle is happening in their midst, while encouraging them to convert. [[Note: Genuine (true) Christians practice no such deceit. This is practiced exclusively by the apostate (counterfeit) Christians]].

One such fake "miracle" prayer meeting, called the "Gangtok Prayer Festival 2002", is being organised in Gangtok (at Guards Ground), from April 26 to 28. It will be conducted by Dr Paul Dinakaran (he runs Jesus Calls from Chennai), who is famous for leading these "miracle" meetings all over India. Who is behind the drive? There are three US-based Christian fundamentalist organisations. The first is Bible for the world; second, Common Global Ministries Board; and third, United Church Board for World Ministries.[[Note: all of these three mentioned groups are apostate (counterfeit) Christian groups, and NOT genuine (true) footstep followers of Christ, i.e., genuine (true) Christians.]] These foreign missionaries could be quietly pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Where does the money for organising these costly meetings come from? Only the Government of India can answer these questions. Sikkim is a sensitive border area, which is claimed by China. Does, for instance, the reader know that China encourages foreign missionaries to convert Tibetans in Tibet [[Note: Only encourages missionaries of the apostate (counterfeit) Christian groups, and NOT genuine (true) footstep followers of Christ, i.e., genuine (true) Christians.]] and that the Dalai-lama is very concerned about this fact? Although it is learnt from reliable sources that Governor Kedarnath Sahani of Sikkim, as well as Chief Minister Pawan Chamling, are very concerned, the State Government seems unable to do much, as many of its Christian ministers are involved in this meeting. Conversions have been taking place in Sikkim since long. Earlier, the North District of Sikkim was targeted in places like Janghu where the Lepcha community lives. But it is happening now in all the districts of Sikkim (West-Sombaria/ Soreng, South-Namchi, East-Gangtok). [[Note: Once more all the items mentioned as taking place are by missionaries of the apostate (counterfeit) Christian groups, and NOT genuine (true) footstep followers of Christ, i.e., genuine (true) Christians.]]

It is especially the tribals and Hindus living below the poverty line who are being targeted. It's not just that conversion is an unethical custom; it also threatens a whole way of life, erasing centuries of tradition, customs, wisdom. It teaches people to despise their own religion and look westwards to a culture which is alien to them, with disastrous results. Look how the biggest drug problems in India are found in the North-East, or how Third World countries, which have been totally Christianised, have lost all their moorings and bearing, and are drifting away without nationalism and self-pride. It is time that Indians awoke to the threat of Christian conversions here. [[Note: Once more the writer fails to define the so called Christians he is talking about as the apostate (counterfeit) Christian groups, and NOT genuine (true) footstep followers of Christ, i.e., genuine (true) Christians.]]


The argument that Christians are only 3 per cent in India, and therefore cannot be a threat, is totally fallacious: The influence that Christians exercise in this country through their schools, hospitals and the enormous amount of money being poured in by Western countries for the purpose of converting Hindus, is totally disproportionate to their numbers. [[Note: Once more the writer fails to define the so called Christians he is talking about as the apostate (counterfeit) Christian groups, and NOT genuine (true) footstep followers of Christ, i.e., genuine (true) Christians. What is needed is a heart felt conversion to genuine (true) Christianity and not the false, apostate (counterfeit) Christianity that is taking place per what the writer says.]]


Western missionaries (and their governments) would like us to believe that democracy includes the freedom to convert by any means. But France, for example, a traditionally Christian country, has a Minister who is in charge of hunting down "sects". And by sects, what is meant is any group that does not fall within the recognised family of Christianity, specially anything that is a Hindu flavour: There is not a single Hindu temple in France and all recent applications for the construction of one have been rejected. [[Note: People everywhere should have complete freedom of religion as long as they do NOT interfere and harm others, be they right and/or wrong. There is of course no excuse for the action of either France and/or Saudi Arabia with regard to restricting religious freedom, their actions are unacceptable intolerance.]]

It is sad that Indians, once converted, especially the priests and nuns, tend to turn against their own country and help in the conversion drive. There are very few "White" missionaries left in India and most of the conversions are done by Indian priests. Last year, during the Bishops' conference in Bangalore, it was restated by priests from all over India that conversion is the first priority of the Church. But are the priests and bishops aware that they would never find in any Western country the same freedom to convert, that they take for granted in India? [[Note: FIRST, Once more the writer fails to define the so called Christians he is talking about as the apostate (counterfeit) Christian groups, and NOT genuine (true) footstep followers of Christ, i.e., genuine (true) Christians. What is needed is a heart felt conversion to genuine (true) Christianity and not the false, apostate (counterfeit) Christianity that is taking place per what the writer says. SECOND, What the writer says, "that they would never find in any Western country the same freedom to convert," is prima facia untrue as one look at Dearborn, Michigan, USA would prove where Muslims have found complete freedom of religion to be the case.]]

Do they know that in China they would be expelled, if not put behind bars? Do they realise that they have been honoured guests in this country for nearly 2,000 years (the first Christian community in the world is that of Syrian Christians, who have prospered in peace in India since 1st century AD) and that they are betraying those who gave them peace and freedom? [[Note: Factual problem, the people here spoken of are NOT "guest" but also Indians, but Indians with a different religion, so the writer is intentionally misleading once more.]]

The message of Christ is one of Love, of respecting other's cultures and creed - not of utilising devious and unethical means for converting people. It is false to say that Jesus is the only "true" God. The Divine has manifested Himself throughout the ages under different names and identities, whether it is Christ, Buddha, Krishna or Mohammed. Let this be the motto of the 21st century. Only then will true spirituality emerge, beyond all religions and intolerances. [[Note, as said before: FIRST, Once more the writer fails to define the so called Christians he is talking about as the apostate (counterfeit) Christian groups, and NOT genuine (true) footstep followers of Christ, i.e., genuine (true) Christians. What is needed is a heart felt conversion to genuine (true) Christianity and not the false, apostate (counterfeit) Christianity that is taking place per what the writer says. SECOND, What the writer says, "that they would never find in any Western country the same freedom to convert," is prima facia untrue as one look at Dearborn, Michigan, USA would prove where Muslims have found complete freedom of religion to be the case.]]

;EARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION, BOTH TRUE AND FALSE, AT WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  THE HISTORIC JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST: (A THREE PART PROOF THAT JESUS IS A REAL HISTORICAL PERSON).   With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1]   SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 286B]

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7  And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.   Job 1:6 – 7, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Then, Almighty God (YHWH) asked Satan, Job 1:8 – 12, [AV] “And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9  Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10  Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11  But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 12  And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.”  Thus began the test that would show Satan was wrong.  The results, in Job’s own words at Job 27:3 - 10, [AV] “All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;  4  My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit.  5  God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.  6  My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.  7 Let mine enemy be as the wicked, and he that riseth up against me as the unrighteous.  8  For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?  9  Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him?  10  Will he delight himself in the Almighty? will he always call upon God?”   

[2]  THE HISTORIC JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST: (A THREE PART PROOF THAT JESUS IS A REAL HISTORICAL PERSON).

INTRODUCTION:

Worldly critics do not want to accept the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, and are always trying to find fault with it and failing to apply the constraints given in it when applying logic and reasoning. In fact, they sometimes even label events whose understanding is simple if you apply the constraints therein given by calling them contradictions which they are not.

In addition, they often claim, without proof of course, that accounts about him by contemporary historians have been "doctored". Why, because they want to justify their none belief in their Creator, Almighty God (YHWH).
<<<"Interestingly, the first type of records comes from what are known commonly as "hostile" sources-writers who mentioned Jesus in a negative light or derogatory fashion. Such penmen certainly were not predisposed to further the cause of Christ or otherwise to add credence to His existence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They rejected His teachings and often reviled Him as well. Thus, one can appeal to them without the charge of built-in bias. " [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.

Interestingly, as noted by E.P. Sanders in his book, "The Historical Figure of Jesus," at page 49, he noted that most of the First Century literature that survives unto today that mentions Jesus (Yeshua) was written by a small elite class of Romans that detested him and considered his as "merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician."[source - The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders 1933, at page 49].

With respect C. Tacitus, It is well known that he hated Jesus (Yeshua) and regarded him as a troublesome rabble-rouser and had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a "deadly superstition," but readily admitted that this individual that he hated had existed as we have seen previously. <<<" His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!" [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.

Therefore the only conclusion is that Jesus (Yeshua) was a real person, and that more has been written about him than any other person in human history. <<<" Critics do not like having to admit it, but they cannot successfully deny the fact that Jesus had a greater impact on the world than any single life before or after. Nor can they deny the fact that Jesus died at the hands of Pontius Pilate." !" [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.

Michael Grant stated (in 1977) that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods: <<<"...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." [source - M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199-200 , as provided by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus on 03/19/2008]>>>.

And the New Testament is full of eyewitness accounts by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus (Yeshua) that associated with him during his life and no such account exist for any other personage of antiquity.

THE REALITY:

WITH RESPECT FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS:

Worldly critics make the false claim which on the surface sound valid, but on closer examination are not. Let's look at one of these:

<<<" The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.

2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.

Philip Burns (pib@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.

One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets: [source - not given by worldly critic posting same]>>>.

Now on close examination of this critics writings we see internal problems as follows to their false contentions regarding Jesus (Yeshua).

<<<" The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah[[Thereby testifying to his real existence]][[Of course Josephus did not recognize him as the Messiah, but that is far different from that of recognizing his existence and is like saying an American did not recognize Adolph Hitler as his leader which in no way implies none recognition of his having existed.]][[As to calling him the Messiah, that would be like historian H.G. Wells calling Adolph Hitler the leader of the Axis Powers, and in no way implying his belief in him as his leader]], in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius[[Early scholars did not question whether Jesus (Yeshua) had existed, only later critics far removed in time from his day did]]. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus. ">>>.

Now let's look at another passage in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" found on page 598 of "The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus,

<<<"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrim without his consent." [source - The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, A.M. and Published by The John C. Winston Company, and containing the "Antiquities of the Jews" and the "Wars of the Jews" and other items, page 598]>>>.

Also, these critics willfully overlook what Josephus said with regard to John the Baptist as follows,

<<<"2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as 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 towards one another, and piety towards God, and as to come to baptism; for the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], 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 very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, bty 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. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him." ." [source - The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, A.M. and Published by The John C. Winston Company, and containing the "Antiquities of the Jews" and the "Wars of the Jews" and other items, page 540.]>>>.

And now let's look at the passage in the Antiquities of the Jews that the critics like to claim was doctored in context, but goes right in the flow with everything else Josephus wrote,

<<<"...So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they bodily casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them such greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least; and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. 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.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempts about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. ..." [source - The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, A.M. and Published by The John C. Winston Company, and containing the "Antiquities of the Jews" and the "Wars of the Jews" and other items, page 535]>>>.

Now, Yes, Flavius Josephus was a Jew and almost certainly did not believe in Jesus (Yeshua) as the Christ, but he was employed by the Roman Army as a historian and dutifully recorded reality whether he agreed religiously with it or not, just as well-known Roman Chatholic historian Will Durant did, who wrote, "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it ... pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist results. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity ... [Caesar and Christ, page 595) (Lamson, Newton & Durant)]. The problem is critics do NOT want to recognize the objectivity of good historians and compilers of facts, but wish to unjustly use their objectivity to claim their works have been doctored and/or are just plain wrong.

Some claim what Josephus wrote are forgeries, but an examination of his work quickly shows this can not be the case.   Let's look at some of what he wrote in brief:

<<<"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or, some of his companions]: and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, [source - "Antiquities of the Jews, from The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus as translated by William Whiston, A.M., published by the John C. Winston Co., of Philadelphia, page 598.]>>>.

And

<<<"2. 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 towards one another, and piety towards god, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified before hand by righteousness.   Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] 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 any thing 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. [source - "Antiquities of the Jews, from The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus as translated by William Whiston, A.M., published by the John C. Winston Co., of Philadelphia, page 540.]>>>.

And,

<<<"3. 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 os 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 his 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.   Ant the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. [source - "Antiquities of the Jews, from The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus as translated by William Whiston, A.M., published by the John C. Winston Co., of Philadelphia, page 535.]>>>.

And,

<<<"Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city....

WITH RESPECT P. CORNELIUS TACTIUS (AD 56 - C. 120):

(Cornelius Tacitus), c.A.D. 55-c.A.D. 117, Roman historian. Little is known for certain of his life. He was a friend of Pliny the Younger and married the daughter of Cnaeus Julius Agricola. In A.D. 97 he was appointed substitute consul under Nerva, and later he was proconsul of Asia. The first of his works was the Dialogus [dialogue], a discussion of oratory in the style of Cicero, demonstrating to some degree why Tacitus was celebrated as an eloquent speaker; this work was long disputed, but his authorship is now generally accepted. Tacitus then wrote a biography of Agricola, expressing his admiration for his father-in-law as a good and able man. His small treatise De origine et situ Germanorum [concerning the origin and location of the Germans], commonly called the Germania or Germany, supplies (along with the earlier account of Julius Caesar) the principal written material on the Germanic tribes. Archaeology bears out the accuracy of Tacitus, but the work is not objective; it is a picture of the simple Germans glorified by comparison with the corruption and luxurious immorality of the Romans. This moral purpose and severe criticism of contemporary Rome, fallen from the virtuous vigor of the old republic, also underlies his two long works, commonly called in English the Histories (of which four books and part of a fifth survive) and the Annals (of which twelve books-Books I-VI, XI-XVI-survive). The extant books of the Histories cover only the reign of Galba (A.D. 68-69) and the beginning (to A.D. 70) of the reign of Vespasian but give a thorough view of Roman life-persons, places, and events. The surviving books of the Annals tell of the reign of Tiberius, of the last years of Claudius, and of the first years of Nero. The account contains incisive character sketches, ironic passages, and eloquent moral conclusions. The declamatory writing of the Dialogus is replaced in the historical works by a polished and highly individual style, a wide range of vocabulary, and an intricate and startling syntax.[source - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07].

And another encyclopedia said, <<<" Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 - ca. 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The surviving portions of his two major works-the Annals and the Histories-examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those that reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors. These two works span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in 14 AD to (presumably) the death of emperor Domitian in 96 AD. There are significant lacunae in the surviving texts.

Other works by Tacitus discuss oratory (in dialogue format, see Dialogus de oratoribus), Germania (in De origine et situ Germanorum), and biographical notes about his father-in-law Agricola, primarily during his campaign in Britannia (see De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae).

Tacitus' historiographical style in his major works is annalistic. An author writing in the latter part of the Silver Age of Latin literature, his work is distinguished by a boldness and sharpness of wit, and a compact and sometimes unconventional use of Latin."[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>.

Now let's look at what this none Christian worshipper of the Unconquered Sun had to say about Jesus (Yeshua). <<<" The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals (c. 116) about the Great Fire of Rome (64), included an account of how the emperor Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the disaster and initiated the first known persecution of early Christians by the Romans. This has become one of the best known and most discussed passages of Tacitus' works.[1] Although partly aimed at showing the inhumanity of the emperor, Tacitus' remarks have been studied more by modern scholars for information about his own religious attitudes and about the early history of Christianity.

Tacitus describes the support for the homeless provided by Nero and the rebuilding of the city, then refers to religious rituals carried out based on a consultation of the Sibylline Books.[2] However, none of this did away with the suspicion that the fire had been started on Nero's orders:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Tacitus then returns to the topic of Nero's reputation and the effect on it of these events: "Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."[3]

References:

1. ^ Syme 533 n. 5 ("This famous chapter has provoked an enormous literature...").

2. ^ Tacitus, Annals 15.39-43.

3. ^ a b Tacitus, Annals 15.44, translated by Church and Brodribb.

[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>

The Catholic Encyclopedia said the following on C. Tactius,

<<<" We possess at least the testimony of Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) for the statements that the Founder of the Christian religion, a deadly superstition in the eyes of the Romans, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius; that His religion, though suppressed for a time, broke forth again not only throughout Judea where it had originated, but even in Rome, the conflux of all the streams of wickness and shamelessness; furthermore, that Nero had diverted from himself the suspicion of the burning of Rome by charging the Christians with the crime; that these latter were not guilty of arson, though they deserved their fate on account of their universal misanthropy. Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv)..

AND, Those who regard the passage as spurious,

First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:

* Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;

* the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;

* 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.

But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings.".[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

OTHER EARLY PAGAN WRITERS ON CHRIST:

Here is what some other early pagan writers who lived in the First Century had to say about Christ,

<<<"B. Suetonius, Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church.

C. Pliny the Younger

Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere).

D. Other pagan writers

The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, "Contra Cels", IV, 51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon ( Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Cels., passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion." ).[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

JEWISH SOURCE OF THE FIRST CENTURY ON CHRIST:

<<<"Philo, who dies after A.D. 40, is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, iv) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends." ).[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

And,

<<<"The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century.

The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf. "Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre. "[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

EARLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES INCLUDING THE BIBLE:

<<<"Among the Christian sources of the life of Jesus we need hardly mention the so called Agrapha and Apocrypha. For whether the Agrapha contain Logia of Jesus, or refer to incidents in His life, they are either highly uncertain or present only variations of the Gospel story. The chief value of the Apocrypha consists in their showing the infinite superiority of the Inspired Writings by contrasting the coarse and erroneous productions of the human mind with the simple and sublime truths written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Among the Sacred Books of the New Testament, it is especially the four Gospels and the four great Epistles of St. Paul that are of the highest importance for the construction of the life of Jesus.

The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthinas) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ's life; they have at times been called the "fifth gospel"; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; their testimony is also earlier than that of the Gospels, at least most of the Gospels; it is the more valuable because it is incidental and undesigned; it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates. At the same time, these four great Epistles bear witness to all the most important facts in the life of Christ: His Davidic dscent, His poverty, His Messiahship, His moral teaching, His preaching of the kingdom of God, His calling of the apostles, His miraculous power, His claims to be God, His betrayal, His institution of the Holy Eucharist, His passion, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, His repeated appearances (Romans 1:3-4; 5:11; 8:2-3; 8:32; 9:5; 15:8; Galatians 2:17; 3:13; 4:4; 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 13:4; etc.). However important the four great Epistles may be, the gospels are still more so. Not that any one of them offers a complete biography of Jesus, but they account for the origin of Christianity by the life of its Founder. Questions like the authenticity of the Gospels, the relation between the Synoptic Gospels, and the Fourth, the Synoptic problem, must be studied in the articles referring to these respective subjects." [source - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]>>>.

PART 2 TO FOLLOW IN VOL 287B, OF THE HISTORIC JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST: (A THREE PART PROOF THAT JESUS IS A REAL HISTORICAL PERSON).

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT  WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  ACTUAL DISCUSSION WITH A DELUDED TRINITARIAN #1.     With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1}  SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [284B]

All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee.   Psalms 145:10, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Yes, all his works are perfect and this is testified to at Psalms 103:21 – 22, [AV] “Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure. 22  Bless the LORD, all his works in all places of his dominion: bless the LORD, O  y soul.”  And at Psalms 104:1 – 6, [AV] “Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God,  hou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.  2  Who coverest  hyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a  urtain:  3  Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the  louds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:  4  Who maketh his  ngels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:  5  Who laid the foundations of the  arth, that it should not be removed for ever.  6  Thou coveredst it with the deep  s with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.”   


[2]   ACTUAL DISCUSSION WITH A DELUDED TRINITARIAN #1:

FIRST, Your Comment.
<<<Paul clearly tells us that Jesus was equal with God, and "in very nature God". "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." (Philippians 2:5-7)>>>
This applies to him being a spirit being in heaven and not a human just as was the covering Cherub that rebelled and became what we now know as Satan the Devil.
Let's examine Philippians 2:6 and get a better understanding.
Philippians 2:6 who, although He existed in the from of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. (New American Standard Bible [Reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago]; NASB-MP)

Philippians 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (New American Standard Bible [The Lockman Foundation, version]: NASB-TLF)

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(Authorized King James; AV)

Philippians 2:6 who, although he existed in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. (New World Translation; NWT)

Philippians 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, (Revised Standard Version; RSV)

Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. (The Holoman Christian Standard Bible)

Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, (American Standard Bible; ASB)

Interesting scripture in that it is translated many ways, but to understand it, we need to look at it in context. Let's look at what follows in the Authorized King James Bible, Philippians 2:7-11, "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion F7 as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (AV). Here we see that he was an obedient Son to his Father (YHWH). He also, "and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death," and for being obedient, His Father (YHWH) has, "highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name." But the real key is "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Clearly Philippians 2:11 shows that God (YHWH) was very proud of his Son, Jesus (Yeshua), and counted praise given to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua), as glory being given to him. Rightly so, since he, Jesus (Yeshua) was his only begotten, as shown at Colossians 1:15, "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" He, God (YHWH) created him in his image in that he gave him some of his power and his attributes. This was also testified to at Revelations 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" which shows him as the first of God's (YHWH's) creation. In fact, when Jesus (Yeshua) was ascending to be with his Father in heaven, he prayed, as recorded in John 17:5, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (AV). Showing he was returning to where he had been before with his Father (YHWH), see John 6:62, "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?" (NASB-MP). Once returned to heaven, God's (YHWH's) Son, Jesus (Yeshua) is, 1 Peter 3:22, "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (AV)..

As we note in this scripture, his Father (YHWH) has given him authority and power over everything including the angels; but, Colossians 1:16-19, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" (AV), and the Bible reaffirms the Father (YHWH) was pleased to let "in him should all fullness dwell." In 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (AV), testifies that God (YHWH) had given his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) over all except himself when the scripture says "it is manifest that he is excepted." Thus these scriptures clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) are two separate beings; one having always existed and having created the other as his only begotten Son.

Of this scripture, Philippians 2:6, "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," says, 'Being in the form of God (AV). Better, through in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of God, he did not consider his status of divine equality a prize to be selfishly hoarded (taking harpagnos passively). 'Morphe', form, in verse 6 and 7 denotes a permanent expression of essential attributes; while 'schema', fashion, refers to outward appearance that is subject to change." ["The Wycliffe Bible Commentary," edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer (OT) and Everett F. Harrison (NT), published by Moody Press, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute of Chicago].

Thus we can see Jesus (Yeshua) was a separate individual from his Father (YHWH), but was completely loyal and obedient to him. He, Jesus (Yeshua) stated at John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (AV); Clearly if Jesus (Yeshua) said " for my Father is greater than I" we should believe him. He further reaffirmed this at John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (AV). And the scripture continues on, John 5:20, "For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." (AV), so much so as to show him, Jesus (Yeshua) greater works.


SECOND, Your Statement
<<<Jesus possessed the "fullness" of God, because He is God.

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Colossians 1:19,20)>>>

Now let's look at it in context to see the error with regard your understanding, Colossians 1: , "giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." (Revised Standard Version; RSV). Just a quick look at verse 15 clearly shows that he is the first of creation; therefore, the only begotten or first born/created of all of creation. The Bible clearly shows that his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) has put him in charge of all except himself for a period at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 once more showing his subjection to his Father (YHWH) and only having the authority given to him by his Father (YHWH), ""For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one." (RSV), with this distinction or hierarchy of authority clearly shown in verse 28.

<<<He also tell us "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority." (Colossians 2:9,10)>>>

Now, let's look at this in context, Colossians 2:4-12, "say this in order that no one may delude you with beguiling speech. 5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. 6 As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." (RSV), now verses 11 and 12 are the key to understanding here, since his Father (YHWH) is testified to having 'raised him from the dead.'

THIRD, Your comment,
<<<If Jesus is the head over "every power and authority", does that place Him over God? No, because He is God.>>>

Shows a great lack of understanding as just shown in SECOND above, plus forgetfulness that his Father (YHWH) is greater as clearly shown by God (YHWH) appointing his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) as the only mediator between God (YHWH) and man per 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," (RSV).

FOURTH, Your Comment,
<<<"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." (Colossians 1:15-17)

Jesus cannot be a created thing if He created ALL THINGS. He existed before all created things and created all created things.>>>

First, You appear to not to realize that God (YHWH) after creating him, used him, Jesus (Yeshua) as his master worker in the creation of all else. Let's look at the facts:

<<< Master workman in Keeping With Jewish Law of Agencies:

The Jewish Law of Agencies which is basically as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, "Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder). Now that we know what the Jewish Law of Agencies is, let's see how it applies to Jesus (Yeshua).

First it is necessary to understand that Jesus (Yeshua) is often referred to as the 'Word' as shown at John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." (ASV); And at 1 John 1:1, "That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life " (ASV); And at Revelation 19:13, "And he [is] arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God." (ASV). That which is said about the Word in the New Testament fits remarkably the description of 'wisdom' in the Old Testament given at Proverbs 8:22-31, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, [as] a master workman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, 31 Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men." (ASV). There wisdon is personified, and represented as able to speak and act per Proverbs 8:1, "Doth not wisdom cry, And understanding put forth her voice?" (ASV). In fact it was understood by many Christian writers of the early centuries of the C.E. that this section referred symbolically to God's (YHWH) Son, Jesus (Yeshua) in his pre-human state. Thus, in view of the scriptures already considered, there is no denying that the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) was 'produced' by God (YHWH) 'as the "beginning of his way, Before his works of old" or the earliest of his achievements very long ago and was beside God (YHWH) as his agent or master worker during the creation of the earth as described in Proverbs just quoted. Hebrew, like modern day Spanish, assigns gender to its nouns, and the word for 'wisdom' is always in the feminine gender. Thus, this would remain the case even when is personified and therefore would not rule out wisdom's being used in a figurative way to represent God's firstborn Son, Jesus (Yeshua). It is to be remembered that the title "gohe'leth"or "Kohelet" or congregator in English that Solomon applied to himself at Ecclesiastes 1:1, "The words of Kohelet, the son of David, king in Yerushalayim" (Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible ), and this word also is in the feminine gender.

God's (YHWH's) own wisdom was shown in creation at Proverbs 3:19-20, "Jehovah by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding he established the heavens. 20 By his knowledge the depths were broken up, And the skies drop down the dew." (ASV), but only through his Son, Jesus (Yeshua); this is also shown at 1 Corinthians 8:6, "yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." (ASV). Likewise God's (YHWH's) purpose toward mankind is made manifest through his Son; therefore the Apostle John could say that Jesus (Yeshua) represents per 1 Corinthians 1:24 & 30, "but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (ASV); And at "30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:" (ASV); And at 1 Corinthians 2:7-8, "but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, [even] the [wisdom] that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: 8 which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory:" (ASV); And at Proverbs 18-21, "Riches and honor are with me; [Yea], durable wealth and righteousness. 19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; And my revenue than choice silver. 20 I walk in the way of righteousness, In the midst of the paths of justice; 21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, And that I may fill their treasuries. " (ASV). Thus as we can see that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ has become to us wisdom from God, and also righteousness and sanctification and a release by ransom.

Not a Co-Creator:

Jesus (Yeshua) took part with respect the creative works, but this did NOT make him a co-Creator along with his Father (YHWH). Why not? Because all the power for creation came from God through his Holy Spirit, or active force as shown by Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (ASV); And at Psalms 33:6, "By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." (ASV). Of course some may object and have different views with regard to what the Holy Spirit is, but let's look at the facts. The "New American Bible Catholic Bible," says in a footnote regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa·ra'kle·tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. And in Ancient Hebrew the word here rendered Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, or Spirit which is translated from 'ru'ach' meaning "breath; wind; spirit." In Latin, it is spiritus, and in Sanskrit, 'prana' which means both "breath" and "spirit." Thus God (YHWH) is the source of all life, all animate creation, both visible and invisible, as shown at Psalms 36:9, "For with thee is the fountain of life: In thy light shall we see light." (ASV). Thus all of creation including his only begotten Son owes their lives to him. Thus, rather than being a co-Creator with his Father (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua) was the agent or instrumentality through whom God (YHWH), the Creator, worked using him as his 'master worker.' Jesus (Yeshua) himself gave credit to his Father (YHWH) for all of creation, see Matthew 19:4-6, "And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made [them] from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (ASV).[source - Documentary on Our Savior Jesus (Yeshua) by Iris the Preacher- 2003]>>>

FIFTH, Your comment,

<<<"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) >>>

It is quite obvious you do not recognize the defectiveness of these translational constructs, but I will first give you the simple demonstration of this and then the technical one.

First, it is impossible for someone, either human or spirit in nature, to be WITH someone and also BE that someone. You should already know this.

Second, the technical explanation in brief:
Constructs of John 1:1, Read and Learn:

Let's look at the 10 possible constructs of John 1:1 that do NOT violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the fact is that THEOS (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God") for two of the constructs:

<1> "and a god was the Logos." [example of Bible using, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood, 1979]

<2> "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" [example of Bible using, Schonfield, 1976]

<3> "The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the word was." [example of Bible using, The New English Bible, NEB, 1961-present standard Bible agreed to by most denominations in the United Kingdom]

<4> "And the word was a god" [example of Bible using, The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.]

<5> "and the Word was divine" [example of Bible using, The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed. }

<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]

<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]

<8> "the Logos was divine" [example of Bible using, The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat]

<9> "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] [example of Bible using, Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1982]

<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 198

As we can see, here are ten different constructs possible without violating any rule of Koine Greek grammar except the count Noun rule. So, now, let's look at what follows in context in general format at John 1:2:

"The Word, then, was with God at the beginning," (The New English Bible, NEB)

"The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version, ASB)

"The same was in the beginning with God." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)

"He was in the beginning with God." (Revised Standard Version; RSV)

"He was in the beginning with God." (The Confraternity Edition of the New Testament - Catholic)

As is easily seen, John 1:2 is substantially the same in all translations. However, in context it does not harmonize with some of the constructs used which do not violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the count Noun rule to be explained later.

However clearly some of the ten (10) or more basic constructs agree in context with John 1:2 and some do NOT. Let's look at the point where some do not agree or harmonize with the context of John 1:2:

John 1:2 plainly says that the Word, or Logos, who is Jesus (Yeshua) was with God in the beginning which would be impossible if Jesus (Yeshua) was Almighty God (YHWH) himself. This rules out constructs 6, 7, and 10, represented below, as impossible as they do NOT harmonize with context.

<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]

<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]

<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 198

And two of these constructs do violate the count Noun rule of Koine Greek; to wit, constructs 6 and 7.

Now exactly what is the count Noun rule of Koine Greek? It is as follows:

The fact is that THEOS (=God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God"). The trinitarian argument hinges on stripping THEOS of its count-ability, so that it is purely qualitative. However, if a noun is PURELY qualitative, it is not a count noun. An adjective or a mass noun may fit their requirement for emphasizing qualitativness only, but a count noun MUST BE countable, for that is what count means when describing a count noun. If he accepts this rather elementary rule of English grammar, you can demonstrate that, as a count noun, THEOS may be translated either "the Word was God" (="the Word was The God", which is Sabellianism), or "the Word was a god". Since orthodox trinitarians reject "the Word was The God" (=Sabellianism), they are left with "the Word was a god" -- that is, if they remain true to English syntax (and English syntax is what ENGLISH translations are supposed to follow!). If one argues the point, let them provide an example of a non-countable count noun that is not used in a contrary-to-fact situation, such as a metaphor. I have yet to find anyone, trinitarian or otherwise, who is able to meet this challenge. Rolf Furuli, one of the two best living Koine Greek scholars, discusses this in his book, THE ROLE OF THEOLOGY AND BIAS IN BIBLE TRANSLATION, as does Greg Stafford, in his, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DEFENDED: AN ANSWER TO SCHOLARS AND CRITICS. There are also some very good posts by Wes Williams on greektheology that discuss this issue. I suppose if you search the greektheology archives using the word "count" or the name "Wes" you will find much helpful information. [source Kats]

"To preserve in English the different nuance of theos [god] with and without the article, some (Moffat) would translate 'The Word was divine.'"

Notice a literal translation of John 1:1,2:

"In the beginning was the world and the word was toward the god and god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the god."

In these two verses we see six nouns, three referring to the Greek word logos (word, which most recognize to be Jesus) and three referring to the Greek word theos (god). We notic each reference to logos (word) is preceded by the definite article "the", while two of the three times the word theos (god) occurs, it too is preceded by the definite article "the". For some reason, John does not provide the definite article with theos when it is associated with "The Word". We thus see two definite individuals mentioned in this verse. "The Word", Jesus Christ, and "The God", who is Almighty God Jehovah. John does not say "The Word" is "The God". (In fact, most Trinitarian scholars would argue that if John had said the word was "ho theos" (The God), it would amount to sabellianism (the belief that Jesus is both the Father and the Son). As such, it is commonly agreed upon that John was not identifying Jesus as God but rather, was describing him as deity.) But if John did not say "The Word" is "The God", then what did he mean by saying, "the word was god"?

In Greek, it is possible for a noun to act as an adjective when it is not accompanied by the definite article. Consider a Biblical example of this in John 6:70. "Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (NIV)

Here the noun (devil) is not proceeded by the efinite article (the). To reflect this most Bibles place the indefinite article (a) in front of it. Thus, Jesus was not identifying Judas as "THE Devil", he was saying Judas had the qualities of the devil. He was acting like the devil so he was A devil though not THE devil. This example helps us to see how the lack of the definite article can cause a noun to act as a predication rather than an identification.

Regarding this point, noted Bible scholar William Barclay writes:

"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it become more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class of the sphere to which the other belongs...

"John has no definte article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs...

"This passage then [John 1:1] does not identify the Logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor doesit call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God."

Mr. Barclay's observations are duly noted in the example we considered with Judas Iscariot being "a devil".

Now let's consider what the Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn from the Northern Arizona University has to say: "The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word." Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."

Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.) So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism. No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.

APPENDIX:

(1) How some Bible translators who did not have bias translated, i.e., were striving for translation fidelity and NOT to support this or that perception:

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
1979: "and a god was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood,
1768, "and was himself a divine person" Thompson,
1829, "the Logos was a god Torrey,
1961, "what God was,the Word was" Moffatt,
1972, "the Logos was divine Translator's NT,
1973, "The Word was with God and shared his nature Barclay,
1976, "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" Schonfield,
1985, "the Word was divine Revised English,
1989, "what God was, the Word was Scholar's Version,
1993, "The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was" Madsen,
1994, "the Word was <EM>a divine Being" Becker,
1979, "ein Gott war das Logos" [a God/god was the Logos/logos] Stage,
1907, "Das Wort war selbst gttlichen Wesens" [The Word/word was itself a divine Being/being]. Bhmer,
1910, "Es war fest mit Gott verbunden, ja selbst gttlichen Wesens" [It was strongly linked to God, yes itself divine Being/being] Thimme,
1919, "Gott von Art war das Wort" [God of Kind/kind was the Word/word] Baumgarten et al,
1920, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Holzmann,
1926, "ein Gott war der Gedanke" [a God/god was the Thought/thought] Rittenlmeyer, 1938, "selbst ein Gott war das Wort" [itself a God/god was the Word/word] Lyder Brun (Norw. professor of NT theology),
1945, "Ordet var av guddomsart" [the Word was of divine kind] Pffflin,
1949, "war von gttlicher Wucht [was of divine Kind/kind] Albrecht,
1957, "gttlichen Wesen hatte das Wort" [godlike Being/being had the Word/word] Smit, 1960, "verdensordet var et guddommelig vesen" [the word of the world was a divine being] Menge,
1961, "Gott (= gttlichen Wesens) war das Wort"[God(=godlike Being/being) was the Word/word) Haenchen,
1980, "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch,
1982, "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk),
1984, "divine (of the category divinity)was the Logos" Schultz,
1987, "ein Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort" [a God/god (or: God/god of Kind/kind) was the Word/word]

(2) Amplification on How Some Bible Translators Translated John 1:1 And Why:

"And the word was a god" - The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

"and a god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson.

"and the Word was divine" - The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed.

"the Logos was divine" - The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat.

"what God was, the Word was" - The New English Bible.

"He was the same as God" - Today's English Version.

"And the Word was a god" - New World Translation

Please, please look at context before asking questions as most of your questions will then self answer.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT  WWW.JW.ORG

COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]  THE HISTORIC JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST: (A THREE PART PROOF THAT JESUS IS A REAL HISTORICAL PERSON).   With the Scripture of the Day first.

[1]   SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 286B]

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7  And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.   Job 1:6 – 7, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Then, Almighty God (YHWH) asked Satan, Job 1:8 – 12, [AV] “And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9  Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10  Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11  But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 12  And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.”  Thus began the test that would show Satan was wrong.  The results, in Job’s own words at Job 27:3 - 10, [AV] “All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;  4  My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit.  5  God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.  6  My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.  7 Let mine enemy be as the wicked, and he that riseth up against me as the unrighteous.  8  For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?  9  Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him?  10  Will he delight himself in the Almighty? will he always call upon God?”   

[2]  THE HISTORIC JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST: (A THREE PART PROOF THAT JESUS IS A REAL HISTORICAL PERSON).

INTRODUCTION:

Worldly critics do not want to accept the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, and are always trying to find fault with it and failing to apply the constraints given in it when applying logic and reasoning. In fact, they sometimes even label events whose understanding is simple if you apply the constraints therein given by calling them contradictions which they are not.

In addition, they often claim, without proof of course, that accounts about him by contemporary historians have been "doctored". Why, because they want to justify their none belief in their Creator, Almighty God (YHWH).
<<<"Interestingly, the first type of records comes from what are known commonly as "hostile" sources-writers who mentioned Jesus in a negative light or derogatory fashion. Such penmen certainly were not predisposed to further the cause of Christ or otherwise to add credence to His existence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They rejected His teachings and often reviled Him as well. Thus, one can appeal to them without the charge of built-in bias. " [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.

Interestingly, as noted by E.P. Sanders in his book, "The Historical Figure of Jesus," at page 49, he noted that most of the First Century literature that survives unto today that mentions Jesus (Yeshua) was written by a small elite class of Romans that detested him and considered his as "merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician."[source - The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders 1933, at page 49].

With respect C. Tacitus, It is well known that he hated Jesus (Yeshua) and regarded him as a troublesome rabble-rouser and had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a "deadly superstition," but readily admitted that this individual that he hated had existed as we have seen previously. <<<" His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!" [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.

Therefore the only conclusion is that Jesus (Yeshua) was a real person, and that more has been written about him than any other person in human history. <<<" Critics do not like having to admit it, but they cannot successfully deny the fact that Jesus had a greater impact on the world than any single life before or after. Nor can they deny the fact that Jesus died at the hands of Pontius Pilate." !" [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.

Michael Grant stated (in 1977) that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods: <<<"...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." [source - M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199-200 , as provided by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus on 03/19/2008]>>>.

And the New Testament is full of eyewitness accounts by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus (Yeshua) that associated with him during his life and no such account exist for any other personage of antiquity.

THE REALITY:

WITH RESPECT FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS:

Worldly critics make the false claim which on the surface sound valid, but on closer examination are not. Let's look at one of these:

<<<" The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.

2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.

Philip Burns (pib@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.

One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets: [source - not given by worldly critic posting same]>>>.

Now on close examination of this critics writings we see internal problems as follows to their false contentions regarding Jesus (Yeshua).

<<<" The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah[[Thereby testifying to his real existence]][[Of course Josephus did not recognize him as the Messiah, but that is far different from that of recognizing his existence and is like saying an American did not recognize Adolph Hitler as his leader which in no way implies none recognition of his having existed.]][[As to calling him the Messiah, that would be like historian H.G. Wells calling Adolph Hitler the leader of the Axis Powers, and in no way implying his belief in him as his leader]], in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius[[Early scholars did not question whether Jesus (Yeshua) had existed, only later critics far removed in time from his day did]]. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus. ">>>.

Now let's look at another passage in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" found on page 598 of "The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus,

<<<"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrim without his consent." [source - The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, A.M. and Published by The John C. Winston Company, and containing the "Antiquities of the Jews" and the "Wars of the Jews" and other items, page 598]>>>.

Also, these critics willfully overlook what Josephus said with regard to John the Baptist as follows,

<<<"2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as 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 towards one another, and piety towards God, and as to come to baptism; for the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], 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 very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, bty 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. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him." ." [source - The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, A.M. and Published by The John C. Winston Company, and containing the "Antiquities of the Jews" and the "Wars of the Jews" and other items, page 540.]>>>.

And now let's look at the passage in the Antiquities of the Jews that the critics like to claim was doctored in context, but goes right in the flow with everything else Josephus wrote,

<<<"...So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they bodily casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them such greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least; and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. 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.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempts about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. ..." [source - The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, A.M. and Published by The John C. Winston Company, and containing the "Antiquities of the Jews" and the "Wars of the Jews" and other items, page 535]>>>.

Now, Yes, Flavius Josephus was a Jew and almost certainly did not believe in Jesus (Yeshua) as the Christ, but he was employed by the Roman Army as a historian and dutifully recorded reality whether he agreed religiously with it or not, just as well-known Roman Chatholic historian Will Durant did, who wrote, "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it ... pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist results. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity ... [Caesar and Christ, page 595) (Lamson, Newton & Durant)]. The problem is critics do NOT want to recognize the objectivity of good historians and compilers of facts, but wish to unjustly use their objectivity to claim their works have been doctored and/or are just plain wrong.

Some claim what Josephus wrote are forgeries, but an examination of his work quickly shows this can not be the case.   Let's look at some of what he wrote in brief:

<<<"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or, some of his companions]: and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, [source - "Antiquities of the Jews, from The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus as translated by William Whiston, A.M., published by the John C. Winston Co., of Philadelphia, page 598.]>>>.

And

<<<"2. 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 towards one another, and piety towards god, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified before hand by righteousness.   Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] 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 any thing 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. [source - "Antiquities of the Jews, from The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus as translated by William Whiston, A.M., published by the John C. Winston Co., of Philadelphia, page 540.]>>>.

And,

<<<"3. 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 os 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 his 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.   Ant the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. [source - "Antiquities of the Jews, from The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus as translated by William Whiston, A.M., published by the John C. Winston Co., of Philadelphia, page 535.]>>>.

And,

<<<"Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city....

WITH RESPECT P. CORNELIUS TACTIUS (AD 56 - C. 120):

(Cornelius Tacitus), c.A.D. 55-c.A.D. 117, Roman historian. Little is known for certain of his life. He was a friend of Pliny the Younger and married the daughter of Cnaeus Julius Agricola. In A.D. 97 he was appointed substitute consul under Nerva, and later he was proconsul of Asia. The first of his works was the Dialogus [dialogue], a discussion of oratory in the style of Cicero, demonstrating to some degree why Tacitus was celebrated as an eloquent speaker; this work was long disputed, but his authorship is now generally accepted. Tacitus then wrote a biography of Agricola, expressing his admiration for his father-in-law as a good and able man. His small treatise De origine et situ Germanorum [concerning the origin and location of the Germans], commonly called the Germania or Germany, supplies (along with the earlier account of Julius Caesar) the principal written material on the Germanic tribes. Archaeology bears out the accuracy of Tacitus, but the work is not objective; it is a picture of the simple Germans glorified by comparison with the corruption and luxurious immorality of the Romans. This moral purpose and severe criticism of contemporary Rome, fallen from the virtuous vigor of the old republic, also underlies his two long works, commonly called in English the Histories (of which four books and part of a fifth survive) and the Annals (of which twelve books-Books I-VI, XI-XVI-survive). The extant books of the Histories cover only the reign of Galba (A.D. 68-69) and the beginning (to A.D. 70) of the reign of Vespasian but give a thorough view of Roman life-persons, places, and events. The surviving books of the Annals tell of the reign of Tiberius, of the last years of Claudius, and of the first years of Nero. The account contains incisive character sketches, ironic passages, and eloquent moral conclusions. The declamatory writing of the Dialogus is replaced in the historical works by a polished and highly individual style, a wide range of vocabulary, and an intricate and startling syntax.[source - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07].

And another encyclopedia said, <<<" Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 - ca. 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The surviving portions of his two major works-the Annals and the Histories-examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those that reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors. These two works span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in 14 AD to (presumably) the death of emperor Domitian in 96 AD. There are significant lacunae in the surviving texts.

Other works by Tacitus discuss oratory (in dialogue format, see Dialogus de oratoribus), Germania (in De origine et situ Germanorum), and biographical notes about his father-in-law Agricola, primarily during his campaign in Britannia (see De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae).

Tacitus' historiographical style in his major works is annalistic. An author writing in the latter part of the Silver Age of Latin literature, his work is distinguished by a boldness and sharpness of wit, and a compact and sometimes unconventional use of Latin."[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>.

Now let's look at what this none Christian worshipper of the Unconquered Sun had to say about Jesus (Yeshua). <<<" The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals (c. 116) about the Great Fire of Rome (64), included an account of how the emperor Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the disaster and initiated the first known persecution of early Christians by the Romans. This has become one of the best known and most discussed passages of Tacitus' works.[1] Although partly aimed at showing the inhumanity of the emperor, Tacitus' remarks have been studied more by modern scholars for information about his own religious attitudes and about the early history of Christianity.

Tacitus describes the support for the homeless provided by Nero and the rebuilding of the city, then refers to religious rituals carried out based on a consultation of the Sibylline Books.[2] However, none of this did away with the suspicion that the fire had been started on Nero's orders:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Tacitus then returns to the topic of Nero's reputation and the effect on it of these events: "Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."[3]

References:

1. ^ Syme 533 n. 5 ("This famous chapter has provoked an enormous literature...").

2. ^ Tacitus, Annals 15.39-43.

3. ^ a b Tacitus, Annals 15.44, translated by Church and Brodribb.

[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>>

The Catholic Encyclopedia said the following on C. Tactius,

<<<" We possess at least the testimony of Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) for the statements that the Founder of the Christian religion, a deadly superstition in the eyes of the Romans, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius; that His religion, though suppressed for a time, broke forth again not only throughout Judea where it had originated, but even in Rome, the conflux of all the streams of wickness and shamelessness; furthermore, that Nero had diverted from himself the suspicion of the burning of Rome by charging the Christians with the crime; that these latter were not guilty of arson, though they deserved their fate on account of their universal misanthropy. Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv)..

AND, Those who regard the passage as spurious,

First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:

* Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;

* the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;

* 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.

But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings.".[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

OTHER EARLY PAGAN WRITERS ON CHRIST:

Here is what some other early pagan writers who lived in the First Century had to say about Christ,

<<<"B. Suetonius, Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church.

C. Pliny the Younger

Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere).

D. Other pagan writers

The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, "Contra Cels", IV, 51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon ( Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Cels., passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion." ).[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

JEWISH SOURCE OF THE FIRST CENTURY ON CHRIST:

<<<"Philo, who dies after A.D. 40, is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, iv) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends." ).[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

And,

<<<"The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century.

The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf. "Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre. "[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

EARLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES INCLUDING THE BIBLE:

<<<"Among the Christian sources of the life of Jesus we need hardly mention the so called Agrapha and Apocrypha. For whether the Agrapha contain Logia of Jesus, or refer to incidents in His life, they are either highly uncertain or present only variations of the Gospel story. The chief value of the Apocrypha consists in their showing the infinite superiority of the Inspired Writings by contrasting the coarse and erroneous productions of the human mind with the simple and sublime truths written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Among the Sacred Books of the New Testament, it is especially the four Gospels and the four great Epistles of St. Paul that are of the highest importance for the construction of the life of Jesus.

The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthinas) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ's life; they have at times been called the "fifth gospel"; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; their testimony is also earlier than that of the Gospels, at least most of the Gospels; it is the more valuable because it is incidental and undesigned; it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates. At the same time, these four great Epistles bear witness to all the most important facts in the life of Christ: His Davidic dscent, His poverty, His Messiahship, His moral teaching, His preaching of the kingdom of God, His calling of the apostles, His miraculous power, His claims to be God, His betrayal, His institution of the Holy Eucharist, His passion, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, His repeated appearances (Romans 1:3-4; 5:11; 8:2-3; 8:32; 9:5; 15:8; Galatians 2:17; 3:13; 4:4; 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 13:4; etc.). However important the four great Epistles may be, the gospels are still more so. Not that any one of them offers a complete biography of Jesus, but they account for the origin of Christianity by the life of its Founder. Questions like the authenticity of the Gospels, the relation between the Synoptic Gospels, and the Fourth, the Synoptic problem, must be studied in the articles referring to these respective subjects." [source - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York]>>>.

PART 2 TO FOLLOW IN VOL 287B, OF THE HISTORIC JESUS (YESHUA) CHRIST: (A THREE PART PROOF THAT JESUS IS A REAL HISTORICAL PERSON).

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION - BOTH TRUE AND FALSE - AT  WWW.JW.ORG