Chit Chat

By Ted Belman

From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.

Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.

Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.

The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.

Everyone will be happier.

April 16, 2020 | 7,945 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 7945 Comments

  4. No woman would find this story funny since everyone knows that what women love to do aside from shopping is to talk about shopping, so the first time a woman visited the sixth floor the rest of the female population of the planet would know about the choices offered much faster than available bandwidth speed of the national Internet network.

    I doubt very much that many men would make it to the second floor though…after all, they can return if the first ‘purchase’ doesn’t work out…they keep doing that in real life

  5. @ mar55:
    Dove,it is funny. It might be difficult to find a woman with the three qualities on the third floor but. Perhaps two of the three. What do you think HB?

  9. honeybee Said:

    @ mar55:
    @ dove:

    Female and male department store

    WOMEN…

    A department store opened in New York City that sold men and a woman decides to visit it in search of a husband.
    At the store’s entrance, there’s a sign outlining the department store policy.

    The first rule states that you can only enter the store once.
    There are six floors and on each floor you can choose a husband or elect to move on to the next floor.
    You cannot visit a floor more than once other than to leave the building.

    The woman visits the first floor.
    The sign reads:
    · Men with jobs.
    She moves on to the second floor:
    · Men with jobs that adore children.

    She moves on the the third floor where the sign reads:
    · Wealthy men that adore children and are very handsome.
    She thinks to herself, “that’s a very good deal” yet moves

    on to the fourth floor:
    · Wealthy men that adore children, are very handsome and help with the household chores.
    She decides to move on as things are constantly improving:

    · Wealthy men that adore childern, are very handsome, help with the household chores and are very romantic.
    The woman is about to make her purchase but can’t resist moving on to the sixth floor.
    There the sign reads:
    · You are visitor number 31,456,012 on this floor.
    · There are no men here.
    · This floor exists as proof that it is impossible to please women.

    & MEN…

    Opposite this department store, another department store
    that sold women.

    The sign on the first floor reads:
    · Women that love sex.

    On the second floor the sign reads:
    · Women that love sex and are wealthy.

    On the third floor the sign reads:
    · Women that love sex, are wealthy and have large breasts.

    Not a single man has visited the fourth floor.

  18. @ dove:
    Dove, I once heard my grandmother’s friend discussing certain character. This lady said: I prefer a petty criminal to a lazy man. One of the Spanish dichas: “He who eats must work.”
    We must add that condition to the advertisement. Do you think there will be any interest? We have put conditions without
    mentioning qualities in return. ?

  19. ArnoldHarris Said:

    As I wrote elsewhere a few days ago, I thought the only major accomplishments of communism in the Soviet Union were twofold. First, it enabled Stalin to force the issue of massive industrialization and modernization of the economy. Without that, the German armies of 1941 almost certainly would have broken Russia. Second, Stalin’s centralization of power enabled him to put his country’s defense into the hands of some of the most talented army officers in the history of Europe. His armies were the ones that did most of the work of crushing the Nazis in 1941-1945.
    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

    Please allow me to enlighten you
    Stalin did not centralise ‘power’ in the USSR. In fact he decentralised it so often different sectors of the society didn’t know what others were doing, which prevented dissent.

    What saved the USSR (Russia has ceased to exist in 1918), was the massive evacuation of the industrial base from the European part of USSR to the Urals and Central Asia. A Jew was in charge of that operation. Moreover Jews were in key positions in almost every design bureau that produced key weapon systems, though usually they were not credited with contributions made.

    Most of the talented officers were killed during the Red Army purges of 1937-41. What saved the USSR was not talent but doing the unexpected at a very high cost in casualties in defence of Moscow, the failed Operation MARS, and later at Stalingrad. Thereafter the Red Army used the same doctrine it developed with the Germans in the 1920s defeat them. One of the chief designers of this doctrine was Jewish.

    For this Stalin intended to stage a second Jewish Holocaust after the war, and all was ready, but Zhukov beat him to it and killed him in gratitude for Jewish doctors saving the life of his daughter…and a little revenge. Soviet Jews survived the intended physical Holocaust, but the cultural Holocaust that was started in the 19th century keeps going today.

    Valentine’s Day is stupid
    Only dark chocolate with at least 70% cocoa is good for us, in small quantities. Most chocolates given as presents contribute to obesity, heart disease and tooth decay.

  20. @ mar55:

    You wouldn’t want a lazy schmuck who doesn’t work. Family man is vital. Can have that with honesty. Physical looks should not be a priority – that is very superficial.
    P.S. For Jews the concept of Valentines can be EVERY day. The actual Valentines day doe not appear on our calendar.

  21. @ bernard ross:
    Bernard: With all the hard work you have put into this blog
    I call it forum. You deserve the best Valentine’s Day. I hope you have a wife or girlfriend who will give you all the attention you have given here to others. May I suggest you take a second career as a shrink? You are definitely detail
    oriented and have the privilege to count with an excellent memory. Go out and celebrate. That is if you are in a warm climate. In NY we are having temperatures of -12 and -14oC
    about 8, 10 and 12F. Without counting with the windshield factor. We are totally frozen. Celebrations are indoor at home. HAPPY VALENTINE’S DAY!

  22. @ dove:
    You are right but, looks is not the most important. Provider?
    We can provide for ourselves. My family is all grown and independent. Those attributes are OK but depending on the circumstances we can live without them. Instead of family man by asking for honesty and loyalty it can be included.

  23. @ mar55:

    Probably….but would need other very necessary attributes – a good provider, family man and if you have good looks too we won’t hold it against you.

  24. @ dove:

    dove do you think if we advertise in a newspaper for a Romeo with the following attributes: Middle age man with maturity of thought and behavior. Honesty a must. Strong in character yet gentle. Clean but not impeccable. Not smelling like roses but lack of unpleasant body odor will do. Average looks. Impressions are only illusions. Somebody secure does not need to impress. Must enjoy nature and quiet walks. Enjoy reading
    and considered toward others. Passionate
    Do you think we could find any Romeo like that?
    Fakers do not qualify.

  26. @ mar55:

    Mar 55:

    It’s one year at a time for both Stefi and me. We work out strenuously at a fitness center every day, stick to a scrupulous and carefully planned diet, and stay out of dependence on anyone, everyone, and everything. Life is interesting and frequently rewarding when you structure your life with common sense.

    I admire Russia and the Russians, but I never have written the same thing about communism. I experienced communism first hand, when Stefi and I had extended visits with her parents in Zagreb and in a small house they purchased in the Slavonian village of Garesnica. On the other hand, you and everyone else on Israpundit must know by now that I have little or no use for liberal democracy either. As for China, you could hardly describe their system as communism. They chucked most of that almost the day Mao died and they jailed his wife. That’s how they got as rich and powerful as they are today.

    As I wrote elsewhere a few days ago, I thought the only major accomplishments of communism in the Soviet Union were twofold. First, it enabled Stalin to force the issue of massive industrialization and modernization of the economy. Without that, the German armies of 1941 almost certainly would have broken Russia. Second, Stalin’s centralization of power enabled him to put his country’s defense into the hands of some of the most talented army officers in the history of Europe. His armies were the ones that did most of the work of crushing the Nazis in 1941-1945.

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

  29. @ ArnoldHarris:
    Congratulatins on your Anniversary Mr. Harris. I hope you have
    anoother 43 years of married llife. You must be still in love with Stefi and it sounds as if you have a solid and wonderful marriage. May Hashem bless you and your family. Now look for the next 43.
    I warn you. I do not trust any communist. Not Russians or Chinese. I differ from you because I lived under communism.
    Congratulation again on your Anniversary and have a Happy Valentine’s Day.

  30. @ dweller:
    bernard ross Said:

    @ dweller:
    BTW you still have not answered as to whether you agree with Johns quotes posted by Yamit. Especially that which states that one must go through jesus to get salvation?

    you still never mentioned if you agree with those quotes of John that yamit posted? are you evading the issue that John raised, or perhaps you are pretending that you dont understand what he means?

  31. @ dweller:
    bernard ross Said:

    dweller Said:
    The references to Jesus, to John-the-Baptist,
    Bernard ross said:
    did those references include attestation to your assertion that the Hebrew G-D did something with, to or in a woman and begot a jewish messiah son???????

    You never answered; after all that chat about Josephus but you never quoted where he stated that a hebrew G_D begot a jewish messiah son with a woman.
    in which case i repeat:
    bernard ross Said:

    Hence, there is still NO jewish attestation to the NT as being factual. Anyone can take a yeshu story and spin it into a pagan myth of gods begetting messiahs with women.

    I can only wonder what caused you, who professes to be a Jew, to make that Jump to a belief that a Hebrew G_D begot a Jewish messiah son with a woman. Certainly the Jews rejected this story for 2000 years so I can only wonder why you would buy into such a non Jewish pagan scenario from those who libeled, swindled, tortured and slaughtered Jews for 2000 years. Anyway, you and them appear to have something in common in that you both purport to be followers of your nitri.

  32. @ mar55:

    M55:

    This marks the first occasion in which I have responded to any comment on “Chit-Chat”. Actually, yesterday, February 13, marked the 43rd anniversary of my marriage to Stefanija Prasnjak Harris. That in itself is a story and one-half. Stefi, with whom I had been together since early October 1969, had been a student at the University of Illinois in Chicago, and had come to this country on a student visa from her Croatian homeland which was then part of the Federated Socialist Republic of Jugoslavija.

    Shortly after her graduation with a Bachelor of Arts degree in anthropology, she received a letter from the US Immigration and Naturalization Service, informing her that she would have to return to Jugoslavija within a stipulated period of time. There was only one way she could remain in the USA, and that was marriage to an American citizen. That was precisely what I arranged. We were officially married by the Clerk of Cook County, Illinois. For that purpose, I bought her a $5 ring from Sears Roebuck. Now, 43 years later, Stefi has much more jewelry, and much of it is 18-carat European-style gold. But she still has that original ring, and it is more meaningful to both of us than all the rest of the trinkets.

    Later that year, we jointly decided we would seek graduate fellowships for the 1973-1974 study year at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Along with that, we decided to have an authentic Jewish marriage, and Stefi undertook a class taught by the late Rav Aaron Rine of the Orthodox Chicago Rabbinical Council, along with some other young women who had similar intentions. And our Jewish marriage took place at a large old synagogue on Chicago north side. Stefi, whose mother had never perChicago’s north side. mitted her daughter to be baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, has taken Judaism far more seriously than I have over the decades, and we still make an authentic Jewish Shabat on most Friday evenings if we are not away from home.

    Eighteen years later, Stefi and I met with Rav Rine once again. The occasion was the Brit HaMila of our youngest son, Ze’ev Stjepan Harris, over which Rav Rine presided in a newer and different synagogue i . The Sandek at that event — the man who holds the child during the Brit Ha Mila — was none other Rav Meir Kahane, who happened to be coming to Chicago for a scheduled evening debate with a liberal Jewish big shot idiot. Allowing me to divert him to that synagogue for our child’s Brit HaMila, by my standards then and now, was the greatest of all possible honors in my long life. Ze’ev has gone on to a career in computerized animation art, and he is senior artist in a games studio in Denver, Colorado.

    Above all, I hope that for each and every one of you, today marks a meaningful time in all your lives.

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

  33. TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS I CAN REMEMBER IN THIS FORUM.
    honeybee, Ted, Bernard Ross, Dove, yamit82, mrg3105, Bear Klein,
    Samuel, Arnold Harris, Felix and phoenix? and others I can’t pronounce.
    HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!
    Enjoy your day surrounded by chocolates. Eat as many as you like. It is good or you.

  34. @ yamit82:

    “As Dr. Gordon Stein relates: ‘…the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars’…”

    Yep, all the deniers love to cite Gordon Stein. Yet Gordon Stein does not name any of the “vast majority of scholars” to whom he alludes. As for “Acharya S/DM Murdock,” a pretty face is always nice to look at, but she seems not to have done her homework, or to have not done any based on the past 40 years of research.

    The fact is that since 1972, the overwhelming consensus among scholarly researchers has been that the passage, as written in the commonly used version, while NOT ENTIRELY authentic, is no forgery but that it contains interpolations upon the original.

    The Agapian text, however, found by Prof Pines of HU has received the endorsement of most scholars, and is NOT believed to contain interpolations.

    Here, from the previous page, is [part of] that discussion again :

    “As to the direct quote in re Jesus himself [Antiquities 18:63], there had long been suspicion that the passage, while not fabricated from whole cloth, had nonetheless been subject to interpolation.

    However, Prof Shlomo Pines of Hebrew Univ announced his discovery [1972] of a different manuscript tradition of Josephus’s writings (from the commonly followed one until then), this being the Agapian text, containing none of the suspect phraseology — and which reads:

    ‘At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.’

    The rendering is credible; the language is such as a Jew could have written without becoming a disciple. Unlike the standard, questionable version, which declares Jesus ‘was’ the Messiah, this one says he was ‘perhaps the Messiah.’

    The vocabulary & grammar are quite similar to the style elsewhere in Josephus’ writing. Y’shua is characterized as a ‘wise man’ [sophos aner], a phrase not typically employed by Xtns in referring to him, but most surely characteristic of Josephus in speaking of other figures from Tanach (Solomon, David, etc), and significant majorities of scholars are satisfied with the passage’s full authenticity in this rendering.

    Shlomo Pines, An Arabic[-language] Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications [Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971]”

  35. this post is linked back to EU building forum as a demonstration
    bernard ross Said:

    dweller Said:

    all the more reason for any objective observer to be perplexed about what you DID post here, as THAT bore no obvious connection to the article

    poor dweller, still perplexed and confused as to how Dove could have posted one word and I was not at all perplexed.poor dweller keeps stalking dove, trying to give it all he’s got, falling over himself with excuses as to why others are crazy when he doesn’t get it.
    It appears that dwellers obsession with Dove is having deleterious affects on his day job, dove has the clowns knickers all in a twist

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAcf9fFeKVA

  36. @ dweller:
    @ bernard ross:

    The “Historical” Jesus?

    Everybody “knows” that Jesus was begotten by a god and born of a virgin, even though the gospel writers unaccountably trace his ancestry through the virgin’s mortal husband. His birth was attended by angels, Jesus ascends bodily into heavenshepherds and gift-giving wise men. His infancy was threatened by an evil king who had babies slaughtered in a futile effort to kill him. When grown, he gathered a group of 12 disciples and went about teaching that his adherents would gain eternal life. He walked on water, healed the sick, exorcised devils, made the blind see and the lame walk. He was anointed with chrism and thus made into a Christ (which means “anointed one”) by a mysterious woman who may or may not have been his lover, depending on which gospel you read, and who was the sole official enunciator of his later resurrection. After a triumphal procession accompanied by waving palms and the traditional obsequies of a sacred king, he attended a meal at which he was symbolically cannibalized, the eating of his flesh and blood deemed necessary for his followers’ absolution. Then he was scourged, crucified, died and descended into the underworld. Later he returned to earth, apparently alive again, and then ascended bodily into the sky, where he somehow still lives and pays attention to all the doings of humanity. These things are “known” and commemorated every year, over and over.

  37. Al-Azhar refuses to consider the Islamic State an apostate

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/azhar-egypt-radicals-islamic-state-apostates.html?utm_source=Al-Monitor+Newsletter+%5BEnglish%5D&utm_campaign=f991bff7cc-February_13_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28264b27a0-f991bff7cc-100371289#ixzz3ReuL8oZz

    Interesting, I expect that at a future date, when convenient and after their work is done, that IS will be “rehabilitated” and back in the sunni fold in sync with the sunni arab govs of the area.
    Kind of like qatar egypt, hamas, saudi, ……
    😛

  38. Kurds reject proposed rival force in Kirkuk
    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/iraq-national-guard-shiite-peshmerga-kurds.html?utm_source=Al-Monitor+Newsletter+%5BEnglish%5D&utm_campaign=f991bff7cc-February_13_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28264b27a0-f991bff7cc-100371289

    HEHEHEH without IS driving out the iraq gov troops and now being subsequently driven out by the kurds…. the kurds would not now be in control, they would not have fought with iraqui troops for kirkuk.
    very convenient
    I wonder how much actual fighting was done for kirkuk

  39. @ dweller:

    Debunking The Christ Myth?

    “The Jesus myth was really a concatenation of pagan ideas and practices.”

    http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesusmyth.html

    Realizing that the Jesus myth was really a concatenation of pagan ideas and practices, early Christian fathers decided to account for this fact by calling all the previous gods “demons,” and declaring that Satan in his omniscience had foreseen the coming of the true Christ and had invented all these earlier imitations just to confuse people. Even St. Augustine (Retractiones 1.13) had to admit that his religion existed “from the beginning of the human race,” and came to be called Christian only after the lifetime of Jesus.

    Maat, Egyptian Goddess of JusticeGospel teachings attributed to Jesus have been found in earlier texts, often word for word, some-like the famous Beatitudes-in Buddhist scriptures. The Golden Rule was not a Christian teaching but a Tantric Buddhist expression of karmic law, repeated in the proverbs of Egypt’s Goddess Maat, the Mother of Justice, as well as those of Greece’s Goddess Dike, ruler of fate, and of the Jewish sage Hillel. Nothing truly original has been found in any of the Jesus traditions, and the wonder-tales that used to compel belief because of their very incredibility are now dismissed as crude anachronisms persuasive only to the most naive and credulous minds….

    And according to Acts 4:13, the apostles were all “unlearned and ignorant men” who could not have been responsible for writing the gospels or anything else. Therefore those who put apostles’ names to their gospel writings were forgers, and all the gospels are essentially fakes.

    The truth is that the gospels are not reliable “historical” accounts to tell us what Jesus was—or even if he was. But it is fairly clear that he was connected with the myths of pagan saviors, who were mostly nature deities, representing the eternal cycles of life and death. In this respect their myths might point toward an updated religion more firmly founded on the realities of our world.

  41. yamit82 Said:

    bringing up Josephus for support to his imagined man god on a stick.

    even if josephus actually did mention him he merely referred to a man who might have been crucified like a bit of hearsay… nothing attesting to being a son of a god. If he even existed at all there is no reason for dweller to jump to his myth of a god begetting a jewish messiah son with a woman. BTW he doesn’t think that story is a major stumbling block to Jews accepting christianity 😛 😛 😛

  43. @ bernard ross:
    @ dweller:

    Stupid Brain-Dead dweller is has finally hit bottom of the barrel bringing up Josephus for support to his imagined man god on a stick.

    The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled

    A False Witness

    eusebius church historian catholic imageDespite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

    “…the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars.”

    So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF’s authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most “concrete” secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as “genuine” in its entirety. Read more

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N706g2MspH0

  45. @ bernard ross:
    @ dweller:

    Stupid Brain-Dead dweller is has finally hit bottom of the barrel bringing up Josephus for support to his imagined man god on a stick.

    The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled

    A False Witness

    eusebius church historian catholic imageDespite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

    “…the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars.”

    So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF’s authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most “concrete” secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as “genuine” in its entirety. Read more

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N706g2MspH0

  46. @ dweller:
    BTW you still have not answered as to whether you agree with Johns quotes posted by Yamit. Especially that which states that one must go through jesus to get salvation?

  47. Bernard Ross Said:

    “when the christians tell a Jew that the Hebrew G_D begot a Jewish messiah son with a woman it is less believable than goldilocks 3 talking bears eating the porridge.”

    I think the Judge would sooner accept the sworn affidavit of Goldilocks assertion that she spoke with talking bears. After all, we know that parrots and humans “talk” to each other so there is some semblance of a possible reality. But I have never heard, from Jews, of a Hebrew G_D begetting jewish messiah sons with women being factual, that narrative appears to have been completely rejected by jews for 2000 years…….. I can see why.

  48. dweller Said:

    The courts will tell YOU that the Gospel of John, for example, is in the nature of a sworn affidavit:
    ….The document itself is his testimony; his deposition.

    I would love to see you submit that fairy tale in a court of Law and watch the judge howl in laughter.
    Dweller submits that a fairy tale character in a work of fiction would be acceptable in a court of law as a sworn affidavit
    and guess who would notarize that the fairy tale is in fact a true story about Jews, who would notarize that the “sworn affidavit of John” was factual …. Who would attest that John was real, that what he said was fact and that a hebrew G-D begot a jewish messiah son with a woman……
    who indeed?
    the same group that has been lying, swindling, libeling, defaming, delegitimizing Jews for 2000 years. Dweller does not beleive that they exist but he does beleive that a hebrew G_D begot a Jewish messiah son with a woman……
    😛 😛 😛
    go figure.
    the clown that keeps on performing
    😛 😛 😛

  49. dweller Said:

    The references to Jesus, to John-the-Baptist,

    did those references include attestation to your assertion that the Hebrew G-D did something with, to or in a woman and beogt a jewish messiah son???????
    references to… characterized by….
    such comments are thin and tenuous threads for the assertion of hebrew G_D begetting a jewish messiah son with a woman

    dweller Said:

    “At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.”

    LOL, this is what you hang your hat on for Jewish attestation that the Hebrew G-D begot a jewish messiah son with a woman????? Even if this maunscript was accepted it is obviously hearsay written long after the purported facts by a “jew” purported to be in the employ of the romans. considering the excellent videos provided by yamit on the possibility of a roman invention of the jesus myth his employment sheds doubt just as all the christian interpolation since the time.dweller Said:

    and significant majorities of scholars are satisfied with the passage’s authenticity in this rendering.

    and the article shows considerable numbers of scholarly detractors as i posted. In any case the so called references except the one are no more than attesting to the possible existence of the man you call spaghetti and meatballs and his possible crucifixion and that there were christians who followed him. all trivial and meaningless hearsay none of which provides Jewish attestation to the NT fact you assert of a Hebrew G-d begetting a jewish messiah son with a woman.
    Hence there is still NO jewish attestation to the NT as being factual. Anyone can take a yeshu story and spin it into a pagan myth of gods begetting messiahs with women. You merely have heasay beginnings alluded to long before it was written by a roman employed jew. And even those are in dispute by scholars. If you want a pagan myth of gods begetting sons you can find it anywhere.
    Perhaps you should have stopped at a wise man being crucified and having christian followers rather than degenerating into the pagan god begetting sons with women myths.

  50. @ bernard ross:

    “you have quoted a character from your novel as attestation that the events and characters of the novel are factual.”

    “If the events & characters in my ‘novel’ are as you say they are, then you are the LAST of persons to be asserting that — because you don’t KNOW it to be a ‘novel,’ as you have yet to crack the book containing the ‘novel.’ I’m happy carry on the dispute w/ someone who HAS, but you clearly have nothing to say about it, and WON’T be in a position to do so until you HAVE done the reading.”

    “I told you that the moment you stated that the NT asserted that the hebrew G_D begot a son with a woman and that son was the jewish messiah that it was a myth, a fairy tale, a falsehood, etc. that is the most reasonable assumption to make under the circumstances”

    “Only to one for whom ‘the circumstances’ include the fact that he has failed to do the basic homework of reading the document for himself — and in its absence has nothing but the overactive imagination of an uninformed buffoon to rely on.”

    “similar to assuming that goldilocks is a fairy tale and the baby bear is merely a fictional character in the novel. you have a need to beleive your novel but if you remove that need there is nothing else.”

    “There is nowhere in the Goldilocks tale that it asserts itself to be actual, literal, material fact.

    OTOH, the Gospels do precisely that. There is absolutely no basis for comparison here; all there IS, is your compulsive need to make what you haven’t the balls to read for yourself into a topic of ridicule — even if your effort to do so is quite patently forced & artificial.”

    “although it is an irrelevant submission because the assertion of fact can easily be made by a liar….

    NOT irrelevant. It goes without saying that ANY document can contain deliberate misstatements; that’s neither here nor there.

    “Still, it is basic common logic that you cannot cite a quotation from a character in a ‘book’ as evidence that the facts in the book actually occurred.”

    “Tell that to your lawyer. You are effectively saying that if only one man is privy to an occurrence involving himself, he may not offer testimony to that effect; that his word does not constitute evidence. You are mistaken. The courts will tell YOU that the Gospel of John, for example, is in the nature of a sworn affidavit:

    — admissible in court as evidence, and that — in the absence of differing original documentation or testimony (or clear & compelling indications of utter forgery) — it is entitled to the presumption of veracity until disproven by challengers, who are accordingly saddled with the burden of proof by the policy.

    [T]here’s a world of difference between a sworn declaration on the one hand — and ‘Once-upon-a-time’ on the other.”

    “the phrase ‘once upon a time’ infers that the vents which follow actually occurred”

    Try telling THAT to your lawyer.

    “whereas the ‘sworn’ declaration of fictional characters such as baby bear or yeshu are given little weight”

    Sure, if you can prove the author of John’s gospel to be fictional — as in, the book was never written, it doesn’t exist, etc. (rotsa ruck w/ that.)

    “The courts will tell YOU that the Gospel of John, for example, is in the nature of a sworn affidavit”

    “was he ever called as a witness”

    “Called”? — by whom? The document itself is his testimony; his deposition.

    “when the christians tell a Jew that the Hebrew G_D begot a Jewish messiah son with a woman it is less believable than goldilocks 3 talking bears eating the porridge.”

    That’s not a believability problem. That’s a history problem.