ergo sum.....
Surely you jest in presenting that piece as some kind of "evidence". I plowed through the obtuse and dangling article and found it ludicrous. He makes his suppositions, then to prove them he has to posit that Paul was a liar, not a Jew, was insecure and had an inferiority complex, and that Josephus was in error, and possibly in on the conspiracy. Give me a break!!!
" I have also redefined "Pharisees" generically in terms of "seeking accommodation with foreigners" for two reasons: first, to take into account important self-professed "Pharisees" like Paul and Josephus, and second, to relate such persons and others to Qumran circumlocutions like "Seekers after Smooth Things." By this I mean that we should not simply call Pharisees those whom the Talmud or Josephus might so identify, but those so identifiable because of an accommodating attitude towards foreign rule and some of its important ramifications, e.g., acceptance of gifts or sacrifices on behalf of foreigners in the Temple, Herodian or foreign appointment of high priests, etc."
That about sums it up - he redefines everything that disproves his theories. What a joke. You also need to look at the author and see if he does not have an agenda of his own.
The bible speaks for itself, and is not a compilation of lies. Paul never contradicted Jesus in any manner whatsoever, nor did James and Paul. The article is teeming with absurdities, speculation, and conspiracy theories, all unsubstantiated.
I also found another article where the author cast some doubt on the existence of Jesus at all.
Please come up with something better.
mlsoft
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
