Normal People shouldn't , but because the bible bangers have made a big issue about homosexuality its always good to show them their hypocrisy about where their "holy" book version that they cling to comes from
You wouldn't know hypocrisy if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek. Apparently, the same is true of logic and reason.
Thanks for joining us and lowering the collective IQ of the message board, newbie. Now scuttle off back to whatever institution you escaped from.
typical christian mentality, no thinking, just clinging to ignorance without any critical thinking or questioning and attaching those who call into question the premise of their "holy' books and beliefs
To sum up: Forgeries were much more common in the ancient world than they are today , if only because it was so much harder to detect them and to spread the news of their existence. When they were detected, there were those who cared enough to take action as far as they were able to do so. Christianity has not been impervious to the activities of forgers; but modern scholars have been able to expose most pseudo-Christian forgeries. Despite that, some clear forgeries remain part of the canon of the New Testament.
An example
Despite 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.
To repeat, this passage was so completely dissected by scholars of high repute and standing--the majority of them pious Christians--that it was for decades understood by subsequent scholars as having been proved in toto a forgery, such that these succeeding scholars did not even mention it, unless to acknowledge it as false. (In addition to being repetitious, numerous quotes will be presented here, because a strong show of rational consensus is desperately needed when it comes to matters of blind, unscientific and irrational faith.) The scholars who so conclusively proved the TF a forgery made their mark at the end of the 18th century and into the 20th, when a sudden reversal was implemented, with popular opinion hemming and hawing its way back first to the "partial interpolation theory" and in recent times, among the third-rate apologists, to the notion that the whole TF is "genuine." As Earl Doherty says, in "Josephus Unbound":
"Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction. Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (1956, p.17), calls it 'a pure Christian forgery.
And yet with all the research and documentation , today's fundamentalist , which are intellectually challenged attack the scholarship and the documentation
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/anti-intellectu.html.
