You're a dense mutha fucker in addition to being a liar, aren't you, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas? You mendaciously omit that many if not most written accounts from that period have been lost to history and that Josephus does mention Jesus and that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are, indeed, four historical accounts of Jesus' life that did survive the centuries, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Meanwhile, there is no factual basis for you having a brain, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B HankeringYou've gone and done it now, you stupid motherfucker. Many accounts have been lost, so we should believe a book that has talking snakes in it? Yeah, that's historical fact.
Josephus' accounts are far from being granted complete authenticity. Christian expansion and/or alteration of his work is highly probable, due to the fact that his work "Jewish War", written 20 years BEFORE the work you cite, does NOT mention Jesus in any capacity. It is thought by many scholars that later Christians added to the original text to include mentions of Jesus.
Ah yes, the gospels. They are not considered historical accounts and cannot be used to make any claim worth a shit. Do you know how many times they were altered down through the centuries? To claim they show the existence of jesus as an historical fact, is highly suspect at best. Even if he did exist, the historicity of jesus is highly debated and the accounts in the gospel cannot be taken as historical fact.
The books don't even agree on certain very important facts. If they are to be regarded as historical fact, this is a problem. The Judas story, for example, is rife with contradiction when you read the account from Acts(they say was written by Luke) and Matthew. The stories don't line up.
