Quinton Posted: February 1, 2009 Based off what I have researched it appears as though once again this work has been tampered with to make Jesus stand out more like a deity, just like with the New Testament. The document was most likely originally recorded and Jesus was mentioned because he was a badass. But just like in the New Testament the Church, or whoever it may be, decided to tweak it to conform with the New Testament and make Jesus look more like a God.
It's funny how all the disputed highlighted parts almost fit word for word with something out of the New Testament while everything else sounds like something out of the Nag Hammadi. It just seems that somebody was like, "Hey check out this cool document that talks about Jesus!" and then the as soon as the Church caught wind of it they were like, "Oh cool, let me just tweak a few things here and there and viola, it supports the New Testament version of Jesus."
The sad part about it is that the tampering tricks most people to think that Josephus and his work is not legitimate at all and that Jesus wasn't real at all. In most cases it is never one side or the other, it is always a hybrid.
Experience
Jordan Maxwell has talked about how he feels like Sherlock Holmes when it comes to these topics. He can just walk in a room and figure out what's going on before anybody else even catches it. They then ask him how he knew who the bad guy was and he replies, "I've been doing this my whole life, I'm experienced. I know the game and I know the players." I get this same exact feeling with this document. I know who the players are, I know what they're trying to do and I know how they operate. Everything about this document fits into exactly what they would do.
The 4th reason for rejection in the main article states:
If it is accepted that there was a reference to Jesus, but it has been altered to reflect a favourable view of him, the fact that there has been any tampering with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect; a heavy burden of proof falls upon anyone who defends partial authenticity.
That statement alone just sounds like somebody who is not keen with who is behind all the manipulation. It was obviously tweaked the exact same way the New Testament was. This is an old game and these skeptics just can't figure it out so they keep throwing the baby out with the bathwater, including the existence of Jesus.


3 days 11 hours ago
4 days 12 hours ago
4 days 14 hours ago
2 weeks 5 days ago
2 weeks 6 days ago
3 weeks 1 day ago
4 weeks 2 days ago
4 weeks 4 days ago
4 weeks 6 days ago
5 weeks 6 days ago