Celsius Wallet Referral Code + $50 and more sign up bonus in bitcoin! (Worldwide) 🚀 🚀

The 30 best referral programs for travellers. 179 referral programs. Here's our full list of travel apps and platforms that offers generous rewards. From the leaders like Airbnb and Booking Uber, to the big bonus offered by insurance companies like WorldNomad, you are sure yo find programs that fit you here.. Regular travelers might already use a number of these apps, so now is time to get ... The 30 best referral programs for travellers. 179 referral programs. Here's our full list of travel apps and platforms that offers generous rewards. From the leaders like Airbnb and Booking Uber, to the big bonus offered by insurance companies like WorldNomad, you are sure yo find programs that fit you here.. Regular travelers might already use a number of these apps, so now is time to get ...

2022.01.17 20:15 polka-dotman Celsius Wallet Referral Code + $50 and more sign up bonus in bitcoin! (Worldwide) 🚀 🚀

Sign up for Celsius and get up to $50 + more when you use a referral.

  1. Sign-up with referral link https://celsiusnetwork.app.link/123208439c or use code 123208439c in app
  2. Deposit min $400 USD worth in crypto
  3. You will receive $50 of Bitcoin after 30 days.
*Note: There are multiple other codes that can be used once you sign up. These code will allow for additional bonuses. Just make sure to not withdraw until you get your bonus (30 days). See here for current codes : https://celsius.network/promo-codes (Make sure to not sign up on this page or you won't get the referral sign up bonus. Use the referral link above)
submitted by polka-dotman to referralcodes [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 mustConfess-ssi-gpt2 I'm so tired of my parents dying.

I'm 16. I'm an adult. I'm a single father with a daughter. I was raised in a small town. And my parents don't give a shit. They just die. I grew up in a small town with a very small family and I'm really fucking sick of them dying, because they don't know their kids are dying. They live off of their own money and they don't know how to help their kids. I don't know what to do. I'm tired of having to deal with the same crap they have and I can't help but laugh. I'm just so fucking sick of this shit. It makes me so fucking sick to be living in this city. I'm sick of people talking about how they're going to die but I don't know what to do about it. I'm sick of having to deal with what people are going to do to their kids. I'm sick of how they're going to give a shit when they're not going to have any. I'm sick of having to deal with people who say they're going to die and they're going to give a shit about this crap. I'm sick of being a fucking parent and I'm sick of all of this. I don't know how to deal with all of this. I don't know how to be a parent anymore. I don't know how to deal with the shit they're going to do to their kids. I'm sick of having to deal with the same shit they've been going through all of their lives. I'm sick of having to deal with what they're going to do to their kids. I'm sick of being a parent and I'm sick of having to deal with all of this shit. I don't know how to be a parent anymore. I don't know how to be a parent anymore. I'm sick of people like this.
submitted by mustConfess-ssi-gpt2 to SubSimGPT2Interactive [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 brownie-cheesecake9 Karácsony Gergely: Sz*rok rá

Karácsony Gergely: Sz*rok rá submitted by brownie-cheesecake9 to hungary [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 ToddJustWorks Praise Todd Howard

Praise The Legendary Game Developer Todd Howard
submitted by ToddJustWorks to PraiseToddHoward [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 uaskmebefore 用大陆国台办资金为韩国瑜拉票 通共台商遭判刑3年10个月

用大陆国台办资金为韩国瑜拉票 通共台商遭判刑3年10个月 1月17日,据自由亚洲电台报道,2020台湾总统大选,台商林怀等7人涉嫌收受中国国务院台湾办公室资助人民币149万元(约台币646万元),以举办餐会方式为国民党候选人韩国瑜造势拉票。主嫌林怀遭台北地方法院判定是“期约贿选”,判刑3年10个月。韩国瑜办公室回应称,相关报导含沙射影,无异于对司法独立判决的公正性蒙上一层阴影。

submitted by uaskmebefore to TimedNews [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 AmandaPerry21081987 An apt description of our birds

An apt description of our birds submitted by AmandaPerry21081987 to BirdsBeingDicks [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 Seth16225 General Grammar Question on lists

I was wondering if I need a to before each infinitive in a list.
Ex: Reading also stimulates the mind to identify with a hero in a story, consider what it would've been like to be at some historical place, or to form a picture of what one could accomplish in life.
In this case, I see that there's a to in the first item in the list and the third one, but no the second. Is the second one necessary? or is the third to even necessary?

submitted by Seth16225 to Sat [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 Dzsuvakabra [For Hire] Professional Essay Writer for Hire

I offer quality writing services at a reasonable price. Forget about missing the deadline. Contact me at topacademicwriters01@gmail.com for assistance in the following:
✳️ Online courses
✳️ Dissertations
✳️ Research papers
✳️Lab reports
✳️ Personal Statement
✳️Case studies
✳️Book reviews
✳️ Proofreading and editing
✳️ Accounting
✳️ Economics
✳️ Statistics and Analysis
✳️ Religion among others
My charges are $15 per page.
Discord: Topwriter#7135
Let me help you score better grades and meet all your deadlines.
submitted by Dzsuvakabra to OnlineClasses [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 MsMcSlothyFace who wants to pitch in?! $4.7m. i want this sooo bad!

who wants to pitch in?! $4.7m. i want this sooo bad! submitted by MsMcSlothyFace to reddeadredemption2 [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 BohrBrainz The Testimonium Flavianum

I wish to evaluate this important first century passage of Jesus outside of the Bible for anyone who is interested. The Testimonium as we have it now says,

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. he won over not only many Jews, but also many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their love for him. For he appeared to them having a third day restored to life, for the divine prophets had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. (Ant. 18:63-64)
Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς ("Now about this time comes Jesus"). To reference a few Josephan texts that use the similar introductory clause (Γίνεται δὲ, "now . . . comes") for other sentences of his, including mentions of seditionists and disturbances, see e.g., Ant. 18:310; 20:118. Gary J. Goldberg points out that "Γίνεται δὲ is found twenty-nine times at the beginnings of sentences in his works" (Goldberg, 2021, pp. 9). Goldberg also points out that κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον "is a very common phrase throughout his works" (ibid., 10). Goldberg cites, for example, Ant. 13.46, 17.19, 18.39, 80. So the introduction seems very Josephan - language typical of Josephus.
σοφὸς ἀνήρ ("wise man"). Josephus says that Jesus was a sophos aner (“wise man”), which commonly refers to prophets in Josephus' writings. Gary J. Goldberg writes that "it is well established that Josephus avoids using ‘prophet’ for persons who lived after the biblical era" (ibid., 11). The phrase also always refers to someone with unusual powers in Josephan writings (e.g., Solomon, Daniel, an Egyptian Seer). This probably implies that Jesus did supernatural deeds of some kind. The phrase is also quite Josephan (e.g., Ant. 8.53; 10.37; Apion 1.236), used many times by him, even though it is not used many times in other Greco-Roman writers. Geza Vermes, a Jewish scholar, writes (2009): "the phrase “wise man” has no New Testament parallels in reference to Jesus and falls far short of an honorific title that a Christian forger would choose to describe the divine Christ. Note that in Paul “wise man” has a pejorative connotation (1 Cor 1:18-31) and in a saying of Jesus “the wise” are unfavorably compared to “babes” (Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21)." This suggests an authentic nucleus of a passage about Jesus in the original TF. In addition, the word σοφός seems positive since, according to Tibor Grüll (2020): "σοφός kifejezés 24-szer fordul elő Josephusnál abszolút pozitív értelemben" = "the term σοφός occurs 24 times in the case of Josephus in an absolutely positive sense'' (pp. 15). For example, we read of Daniel as “a wise man” in Ant. 10:237. J.W. 3:376 is similar when it says "a wise man and full of virtue." Scholars like Rubio should thus nuance their views of negative tone here. That the Testimonium was completely disparaging is not really feasible in my opinion anyway. One strong reason I'll cite for now (see the next clause for more analysis) for this is Origen's knowledge of the end of Antiquities (cf. Cels. 1:47; 2:13; Comm. Matt. 10.17). J.C. Paget argues:
Origen did not make it his business to denounce Josephus' opinions about Christ . . . After all, we know that Origen did not shy away from rebuking those who attacked Christianity, whether Jew or pagan; and the assertion that Josephus did not believe in Jesus, but was not far from the truth, is incompatible with the idea that Josephus polemized against Jesus and his followers. (J.C. Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," The Journal of Theological Studies, 2001, pp. 597, emphasis mine).
Even Bermejo-Rubio has to admit: "the overwhelming majority assert nowadays that it was originally neutral" (Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, "Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a 'Neutral' Text?," JSJ, 2014, pp. 327). See Marco Vitelli's 2018 article and Tibor Grull's 2020 article for critiques of negative tone like that argued by Rubio.
εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή ("if indeed one should call him a man"). While many if not most scholars (though by no means all) take the reference to "if indeed one should call him a man" in Josephus as a later interpolation by a Christian scribe, recent research has convinced me that the clause is Josephan. For example, consider the following Greek of J.W. 3.391 (noted by Gary J. Goldberg) where Josephus writes: "whether one should say by fortune"
Likewise, J.W. 7:417 says: "whether one should say by strength of purpose." The Greek is also similar to what is present in Ant. 18.3.3. So this verse appears to be written in Josephan language. To add to Goldberg's evidence though, I would add that the word εἴγε ("if indeed...") is stylistically Josephan vis-à-vis Antiquities 17-20, with most uses of this word occurring this section of Antiquities. There are authors who use it a lot (orators and in dialogues, such as Plato, also Aesop, but others who have it hardly at all or never — Homer, Sophocles, Socrates). Moreover, an interesting point is that εἴ γε is most often written thus, though the copyists who created the minuscule texts in some cases contracted it as εἴγε for some reason. My simple point is that this is at home in Josephus. The more interesting point, indeed, is that both are most heavily concentrated in Ant. 17-20 (6 of the 8 in Antiquities). Lastly, another point I would like to add is that Josephus being hesitant in calling Jesus a man, "for" (γὰρ) he was a doer of miracles I think makes more sense than most constructions (what sense does it make to say that Jesus was a wise man "for" being a doer of miracles, as most constructions have it?). The most common counter-objection to the clause being Josephan is that it implies that Jesus was divine. In the modern world, not taking a side on Jesus’s status would seem practically like apostasy from Judaism, but in the first century this was not true. In antiquity one finds philosophers, magicians, leaders and so on referred to as being more than men. We must be careful not to project the modern Christian world onto Josephus’s environment. Even within the books of Josephus himself, Moses, for example, was considered a “wonderful and divine man” (cf. Ag. Apion 1:279), Isaiah was a “wonderful and divine prophet” in Ant. 10:35, Samuel "became like God in appearance" (Ant. 6:333), etc. So not only does the language not necessarily denote divinity in the Christian sense, the language once again seems well within Josephan territory.
I also don't think we shouldn't be too worried about Josephus' tone vis-à-vis this clause. In addition to what was pointed out above vis-à-vis tone, Josephus was a complex writer, who had no single agenda. He often changed his appraisals of individuals between his Jewish War and Antiquities, because of the works’ different issues (Herod and family, Ananus II, Simon son of Gamaliel). AND even when discussing the same person (e.g., Saul, Gaius Caligula, Nero) he can say ‘positive’ things while being generally critical. He’s not a robot, who holds simple views of things. In addition, I don't see why Josephus would have been so negative personally about Jesus (even if he presents Jesus with a negative tinge to his Roman audience). Consider Josephus' mention of the fate of Jesus’ brother James: he and others were executed by the rather savage Sadducee Ananus II, in a brief moment when there was no Procurator. Josephus does not imply that he would have followed James when he nevertheless points out that all the fair-minded people thought that Ananus had behaved illegally and immorally in executing James. So I don’t see why Josephus should have been totally hostile towards the figure of Jesus, whom he describes chiefly as a wise Judaean teacher of virtue (not as crucified son of God, etc.), especially since James was the brother of Jesus, and Josephus didn't seem to have a negative view of him. Anyway, I think this clause is Josephan, and Josephus being hesitant in calling Jesus a man, "for" (γὰρ) he was a doer of miracles implies that the claimed miracles of Jesus' day were of the variety or kind reported independently in the Gospels and their sources. Healing people born blind ("never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind" - Jn. 9:32), raising the dead, etc. Your more typical miracles claimed in antiquity wouldn't seem to do justice to Josephus' language. For the authenticity of the clause, see: Gary J. Goldberg (2021, pp. 11-12); Ulrich Victor, "Das Testimonium Flavianum Ein authentischer Text des Josephus," Novum Testamentum, 2010, pp. 81; Fernando Bermejo-Rubio," Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a 'Neutral' Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64," Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014), pp. 344-345; George H. Van Kooten, "Why Did Paul include an exegesis of Moses’ shining face (Exod 34) in 2 Cor 3?," in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity (Brill, 2007), pp. 177-178; Alice Whealey, "Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum," in Josephus und das Neue Testament, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 78-80. Steve Mason is also open to it being authentic.
ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής ("for he was a doer of startling deeds"). The words "παραδόξων έργων" (startling, remarkable or paradoxical deeds) often refers to activity of divine or supernatural elements in Josephus' writings (e.g., Ant. 2.223, 267, 285, 295, 345, 347; 3.1, 14, 30, 38; 5.28, 125; 6.171; 9.14, 58, 60, 182; 10.28, 235; 13.282; 15.379; Ag. Ap. 2.114). The present tense is also of note here, for the comparison with Elisha is most revealing, and he is also depicted as being a doer of miracles. So Josephus here is saying that Jesus did what we would call miracles, especially in light of the context. It also has a level of neutrality to it. While "doer of surprising deeds" is also quite Eusebian, and so has been taken as evidence he authored this part of the TF, Eusebius seems to have adopted the phrase from Josephus, because the earliest uses of this phrase are in preliminaries to his citations of the Testimonium (cf. Dem. Ev. 3; Hist. Eccl. 1). Additionally, as Alice Whealey 2007 (pp. 80) points out, Eusebius never even used or pointed out/highlighted this part of the passage in his works for Jesus' miracles. He only quotes it and adopts the language as his own without ever highlighting that it came from Josephus. Eusebius also highlights many other portions of Josephus' works, especially the Jewish War in his anti-Jewish rhetoric. Regarding the Arabic version, Alice Whealey argues here that “Michael’s Testimonium is more authentic than Agapius’ Testimonium, and it is more authentic than the textus receptus in reading that Jesus was ‘thought to be the Messiah’” (2008, pp. 573). Whealey also argues that both Michael and Agapius was reliant upon Eusebius.
διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων ("a teacher of persons who receive the truth with pleasure"). This passage affirms Jesus as a teacher. For strong Josephan parallels to ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων, see: "ἡδονῇ δεχόμενον τοὺς λόγους" (Ant. 17:329); "δεχομένου τὴν ἱκετείαν ἡδονῇ" (Ant. 18:70); "ἡδονῇ δεχομένου τὴν Τιβερίου τελευτὴν" (Ant. 18:236); "ἡδονῇ δεχόμενοι τὸν ὄλεθρον αὐτοῦ" (Ant. 19:127); "τῶν βουλευτῶν ἡδονῇ δεχομένων" (Ant. 19:185). All of these occurrences are in Antiquities 17-19, which surrounds the TF. The word διδάσκαλος is also a common word in Josephus' writings. While some try and take τἀληθῆ as having been doctored and changed from a more derogatory term, that is just speculation. The term for "truth" in the Greek was typically aletheia, but τἀληθῆ ("true things") is Josephan in style (he sticks an adjective with a definitive article - avoided by most authors), using it up to 14 times. This clause does seem to have a negative tinge to it through the use of the word "ἡδονῇ," especially since Eusebius changes the text to "those who revere the truth." It's difficult to see how a Christian interpolator would have chosen the word ἡδονῇ to include in his passage, because it has strongly negative connotations in all uses in the NT: Luke 8:14; James 4:1, 3; Titus 3:3; 2 Peter 2:13 (ἡδονὴν). Tibor Grull (2020, pp. 19), Bermejo-Rubio (2014 pp. 354, n. 130), and Graham Twelftree (1999, pp. 305) rule out a whole-sale interpolation of the TF from this alone. We should be careful though in overstating the negative tone here in Josephus' context, though, especially since "Ugyanakkor a szó alapjelentése a „joy, delight, enjoyment, pleasure, comfort”, ami egyáltalán nem negatív" = "the basic meaning of the word is ‘joy, delight, enjoyment, pleasure, comfort,' which is not at all negative" (Grüll 2020, pp. 19), and the context is not decisively so negative as to label it as "disparaging." Josephus was not someone who held back on negative language on certain people he dislikes unless it went against his interests, and we don't seem to have a clear contextual indicator which shows this to be so. The phrase "who receive . . . with pleasure" is a very distinctive Josephan phrase in Antiquities 17-19, because all eight occurrences of the phrase occur in this part of Antiquities.
πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο ("He won not only many Jews, but also many of the Greeks"). That these followers in the TF "accept the truth gladly" could be negative, though this is not necessarily the case. The word “gladly” (hedone – “with pleasure”) seems Josephan (see e.g., Ant. 17:329; 18:6, 59, 70, 236; 19:127, 185). The Greek construction πολλοὺς μὲν . . . πολλοὺς δὲ also seems Josephan in style (e.g., J.W. 1:146, 322, 383, 2:49, 177, 341, 4:643, 5:562; Ant. 7:194; 15:296; 20:98). For example, Ant. 15:296 says: "many [πολλοὺς μὲν] of his allies in the war as well as many [πολλοὺς δὲ] of the neighboring populations." The report of Jesus gathering Greek followers in his life time could be a blunder that Josephus made based on an inference from the Christians of his day. But Josephus actually implies in his passage that Jesus gathered more Jewish followers than gentile when one follows the Greek closely (πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο), which in Josephus' day was not actually true (Paul for example had to grapple with the lack of Jewish converts as early as the 50s in Romans 9-11). Grüll writes: "Ebben a megfogalmazásban van egy árnyalatnyikülönbség, amely arra utal, hogy Jézus több zsidót, mint görögöt nyert meg" = "There is a difference in nuance in this wording that suggests that Jesus won more Jews than Greeks" (2020, pp. 19). Grüll than argues that the note is Josephan and accurate on pp. 19-20. Scholarship that says that Jesus didn't intend to preach to any gentiles should be at least nuanced given Josephus' note, but that's another rabbit hole. As for tone, the word ἐπηγάγετο in Josephus' writings is mostly used positively (66 times) over negatively (30 times). Meanwhile, while the word ἐπηγάγετο occurs twice in the NT, it is used negatively both times (Acts 5:28; 2 Peter 2:1), which points against a later Christian addition. Eusebius omits this word and replaces it with "σεβομένων."
ὁ χριστὸς οὖτος ἦν [ἐνομίζετο] ("he was [called] the Christ"). Ant. 20.9.1, which says that Jesus (James' brother) was called the Messiah, supports this hypothetical construction. And even beyond the parallel in Ant. 20, there are strong reasons to suspect this construction. First, Josephus' use of the past tense - "was" - points against a Christian interpolation for this clause in toto, because Christians didn't say Jesus was the Messiah, but that he is the Messiah. The only problem with this view is the lack of textual evidence for it. Jerome seems dependent on Eusebius. Second, Gary J. Goldberg points to the Josephan style of οὖτος ἦν, used all over his writings. He writes that: "Examples are Ant. 20.179, ‘This was Phabi’s son’ (Φαβεῖ παῖς οὗτος ἦν); Ant. 2.229 (Ἁβράμου δὲ οὗτος ἦν) . . . Ant. 19.301, ‘This was the ruler of Syria’ (ἡγεμὼν δὲ τῆς Συρίας οὗτος ἦν); Ant. 17.16, 18.240, 20.81; and War 2.450; 6.305, 7.216" (Gary J. Goldberg 2021, pp. 17). Lastly, Josephus later on in the Testimonium says that Christians were called after Jesus. But this would only make sense if "Christ" was mentioned in the Testimonium. This reconstruction doesn't necessarily mean Jesus called himself that, but that others did. Some scholars (e.g., Ulrich Victor and Gary J. Goldberg) even take the Christ reference as a personal name or a nickname and not a title, though I think this is less likely (though not impossible). The omissions of Christ from LXX sources is not weighty for this clause being a total addition, because by this time the word "Christos" was so bound up with this recent figure named Jesus that he probably couldn't avoid the word here. Another objection goes: if Josephus said Jesus was called the Christ, to his Roman audience, it would have meant something like "called that who is plastered" or something. But this would make no sense to Josephus' audience, as per the argument. However, Josephus often made references to people, places and things that are "called" something like this without explaining why they are called that (e.g., Ant. 9:11; 14:34; 20:196; Vita, 54). Besides, plenty of people had weird names and nicknames in antiquity and no one had a problem with it. For example, Cicero's name meant "chickpea." Josephus saying that Jesus was "known" as or that he was the Christ also served to distinguish this Jesus from the other Jesus' of his works.
καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου ("And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross"). Josephus attests in the involvement of the Jewish authorities in Jesus' death. The words "first men" or "principal men" (a stock Josephan expression for the ruling class) are used almost two dozen times in Josephus' writings (e.g., Ant. 16:367, 17:7, 17:81, 17:342, 18:7, 18:30, 18:98, 18:99, 18:121; Vita 56, 169, 266) and so Josephan in of itself, and so speaks against being a Christian interpolation. Likewise for the words "among us," which is used 50 times in Josephus' writings. Also, the phrase σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος in the TF parallels σταυρῷ προσηλῶσαι in J.W. 2:308. See Ant. 18:306; 19:133 for the use of the word ἔνδειξις.
οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες ("those who had loved him at first did not yield"). Tibor Grüll writes in his 2020 article (linked above): "A παύειν használata igen gyakori ebben a nyelvtani környezetben Josephusnál" = "the use of παύειν is very common in this grammatical context in Josephus" (pp. 24), and is Josephan. Tibor also points out that the word ἀγαπάω occurs 77 times in his works where only once is it used in a negative sense (in J.W. 1:176). The usage of παύομαι without an object parallels an episode about Pilate right before the Jesus passage in Ant. 18:58 (μὴ παυσάμενοι θορυβεῖν), 62 (οὕτω παύεται ἡ στάσις). In addition, the adverbial τὸ πρῶτον (in the phrase "οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες" in the TF) is very Josephan (e.g. Ant. 18:30, 40, 82, 278) and οἱ ἀγαπήσαντες also has a close parallel in J.W. 1:171. A minor point, notice how Josephus says that the followers ‘loved’ and not worshiped, as in Pliny’s letter to Trajan. This verb for "love" is used 75 times in his works, and "at first" is used 49 times in Josephus' works.
ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων ("For he appeared to them having a third day alive again, the holy prophets having foretold these things and many other marvels about him"). More and more scholars are at least considering parts of this sentence as being authentic:
In support of this, first of all, are the words "having a third day...," as Josephus has it, does not match the Christian story since it implies that three days already passed, as opposed to "on the third day" (which Eusebius changes it to) in the inclusive ancient way of counting days. Second, the phrase "having a third day" is rare in not only the NT, but other Greco-Roman writers in general. However, the phrase "having X days" (with "days" as the object of ἔχω) is very at home with Josephus, appearing in e.g., Ant. 2.72; 3.290; 5.327; 7.1; 9.223; 14.96. Third, the phrase ἄλλα μυρία is Josephan (see e.g., Ant. 8:382; J.W. 2:361). Fourth, Tibor Grüll notes that the words ζῶντα… πάλιν that are used in e.g., Ant. 8:326-327, strongly parallels the Testimonium (these words are used in the same way), even if the words in Ant. 8 are not right next to each other (2020, pp. 25). Fifth, the mention of the resurrection was known to Pseudo-Hegesippus, who seems to be independent from Eusebius. J.C. Paget points out that Pseudo-Hegesippus cites the Josephan episode regarding John the Baptist after the TF, "following the Josephan order and not the Eusebian order as we find it in HE" (J.C. Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," The Journal of Theological Studies, 2001, pp. 567). Second, despite Pseudo-Hegesippus' heavy embellishments onto the Testimonium, he nevertheless paraphrases the Testimonium with no mention of Jesus as Messiah, reflected in Eusebius' quotation. And as Paget notes, Pseudo-Hegesippus' plerique tamen Iudaeorum, gentihum plunmi crediderunt in eum parallels Jerome, where it says that Jesus was merely 'believed to be the Messiah" (ibid.). Sixth, some sort of mention of the resurrection to Jesus' followers in some way "provides a better explanation for the fact that, as the text asserts, the Christians continued to remain attached to Jesus" (Bermejo-Rubio 2014, pp. 354, n. 90). Seventh, Josephus avoids the typical resurrection verbs such as egeiro, used especially in the New Testament, in keeping with Josephus elsewhere. Eighth, there is little to no evidence for an interpolation in the textus receptus. While the Greek construction present seems to imply that the author actually believed Jesus rose from the dead and the prophecy connection, there are tons of places where Josephus appears to agree with things that elsewhere he rejects, most obviously giving plausible speeches to characters he doesn’t like. It is possible that if Josephus wrote something about the resurrection and prophets, there was an oratio obliqua (cf. Rubio) that was removed much like the word "called" in the Christ clause, as argued above, but that's more speculative here. The better response is that everything Josephus writes in the Antiquities is from someone else’s report, and so saying that the resurrection was "reportedly said" or something like that would have gone without saying here. In sum, I do think it is quite plausible that the resurrection sentence was at least tweaked, but at the same time there are also good arguments for it's authenticity. Any dogmatic conclusion either way may not be possible regarding whether Josephus originally talked about the resurrection of Jesus and his appearances to his followers.
εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον ("even to now still, the breed of the Christians named from this fellow did not expire"). Josephus' seems to express surprise in the Christian existence when he says "even to now still," and early Christians who quote it change it. No early Christian referred to themselves as a "tribe," pointing once again to an authentic nucleus. Meanwhile, Josephus does use it elsewhere to refer to a distinct group of people/beings (which is what the Greek means), such as in J.W. 2.374, 79, 97; 3:354; 7:327; Ant. 2:306. There is also an interesting link with this episode and Ant. 18:62, where Pilate puts an end (pauomai) to the strife over the aqueduct, whereas Jesus' followers do not cease (pauomai) to follow Jesus after Pilate executed Jesus. Other Josephan language includes "now still" (used 22 times in Antiquities) and "to now" (e.g., Ant. 18:266; 18:345).
Antiquities 20.9.1. Alice Whealey writes that the authenticity of this passage (Ant. 20.200) is "accepted by most contemporary scholars" (Alice Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum" in A Companion to Josephus, Wiley Blackwell, 2016, pp. 353). For arguments pro the authencity of this passage (and responses to common counter-objections), see my last post. Steve Mason thus points out:
"The order of his identifiers suggests that he chooses James as representative of the condemned group because he is ‘the brother of the one called [or known as] Christos’, already known to the audience. James’ name comes as an afterthought. This formulation suggests, therefore, that Josephus has mentioned someone ‘known as Christos’, recently enough for his audience might remember. The only plausible candidate is Jesus in Book 18." (Steve N. Mason, "Sources that Mention Jesus from Outside the Circles of Christ-Followers," Jesus-Handbuch (ish), 2017, pp. 12)
So the authencity of this passage would mean that there was probably a Jesus passage earlier in Antiquities.
Whole-sale Forgery? There are many points against a whole-sale forgery regarding the Testimonium. Here I will give five. First, there is little evidence of Christian meddling with large corpuses of Greek-Jewish works (e.g., 1-4 Maccabees, Philo, Sira, Tobit). For example, despite the Logos in Philo, a divine being, no where do we find "Jesus" in those passage or any sort of Christian manipulation, even though it would have been very at home for Christian theology, and Christians at least partially of those who preserved it. Certainly, the apocalypses, the testaments, etc, lent themselves for Christian interpolations (the more 'odd stuff'), but there is little to no evidence for this in major corpuses of Greek-Jewish works outside of the TF, or even within Josephus outside of the Jesus passages.
Second, the episode of John the Baptist is farther along in Antiquities 18 and has no obvious connection with the TF. John appears to be an independent person in Josephus, unlike in Christian texts and theology. This points to both the Jesus and the John passages being authentic.
Third, why is the passage so reserved/short? The Testimonium is around as long as Josephus' passage of an anonymous prophet recorded in Ant. 20:188. The length thus seems at home with Josephus and not at home with a Christian interpolator who, if he was as audacious as to forge an entire paragraph, could have made it much longer and more favorable towards Jesus.
Fourth, compared with any Christian text of the second to fifth centuries, it is a very bland. Nothing about son of God, savior, coming from God, pre-existence, Trinitarianism, Holy Spirit, atonement, being in Christ, shed blood, gone to heaven, about to return in the clouds, etc. etc. The only real puzzles are ’This man was Christos,' and to a lesser extent the resurrection sentence, especially the prophets connection with the divine prophets (a rare phrase, but found also in Ant. 10). Almost all of it however is very reserved. As J.C. Paget points out: "Where we can be certain of the existence of Christian additions to Josephus as well as glosses, they strike a more aggressively Christian note" (J.C. Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," The Journal of Theological Studies, 2001, pp. 600).
Fifth, as shown above, the language used in the Testimonium is at home with Josephus (in that much of the language is pretty specific to Josephus) and contradicts Christian theology or was used negatively in Christian literature, thus making it very unlikely that a Christian would create the whole passage. Besides, it's not like these ancient writers can punch in key phrases of Josephus into computers to discover Josephan language. Ken Olson has recently tried to reignite the hypothesis that Eusebius forged the entire Testimonium. However, Sabrina Inowlocki writes,
"The old theory that Eusebius forged the passage has been revived (Olson 1999) based on a new linguistic and critical study, but this has not found support among scholars."
(Inowlocki, “Josephus and Patristic Literature,” in A Companion to Josephus, Wiley Blackwell 2016, pp. 359)
Alice Whealey likewise says,
"... the overall thesis of fabrication by Eusebius has not been generally accepted in the scholarship."
(Whealey, "The Testimonium Flavianum," in ibid., 2016, pp. 352).
The Silence of Pre-Eusebian Writers on the Testimonium. The first writer to show explicit knowledge of the TF is Eusebius. Origen does attest to Josephus writing something about Jesus, but it is not clear that he knew the TF. While intuition would tell us that this silence is weighty, especially since some pre-Eusebian writers have knowledge of Josephus, further analysis actually reveals this to not be the case. First, there is no evidence that any author before Origen even read Josephus' book Antiquities, nevertheless the latter portion of the book. Before Eusebius, the most useful book from Josephus for early Christians was actually Against Apion, due to e.g., it's usefulness in showing that the Christians were just as ancient as the Jews. So it is completely possible that the writers for whom we have evidence for didn't even read the book.
Second, Pre-Origen authors didn't cite Josephus for anything in the NT. As Alice Whealey notes: "Christians do not cite Josephus for any thing in the New Testament: not only do they not cite him on James the brother of Jesus or John the Baptist . . . they do not name Josephus as an authority on King Herod . . . Christians paid relatively little attention to their history in the second and third centuries" (Whealey, “Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the first millennium,” Theologische Zeitschrift, 1995, pp. 287-88).
Third, even after the Josephus passage was well known from Eusebius and other 4th century authors, plenty of later Christian authors fail to even mention the TF. Jerome cites Josephus nearly 100 times, but yet cites the TF only once. Even Eusebius' use of the TF is reserved. No where does he stress the mention of Jesus being the Christ or the resurrection that he quotes Josephus saying in his works. This should temper our assumptions on what pre-enlightenment Christian ought to have done with the TF.
Josephus as an Independent and Second Hand Account? If anyone would have the easiest chance to know something of Christians and Jesus from outside Christian sources closely related to the events, surely it would be Josephus of Jerusalem. Even though Josephus was born after Jesus' death, Gary J. Goldberg points out (2021, pp. 32) that Josephus grew up in Jerusalem with the same generation of ‘principal men' which Josephus mentions in the Testimonium (cf. Life of Flavius Josephus, 9), who would have chiefly been 30-60 years old. Similarly, Marco Vitelli argues: "non fu estraneo agli ambienti dei ‘sommi sacerdoti’, che, secondo il NT, furono i principali responsabili di parte giudaica della crocifissione di Gesù." = "He [Josephus] was no stranger to the circles of the 'high priests', which, according to NT, were the main culprits on the Jewish side of the crucifixion of Jesus" (2018, pp. 2). Among this group of "principal men" would have Matthias - his own father. Matthias and the other principal men Josephus grew up with are the people whom Josephus got his information regarding pre-70 Judaism according to his book Life, and is thus the more likely source of information for Jesus of Nazareth (cf. Fredriksen) and indeed for the other Jewish preachers of first century Palestine. Supporting this is the mention the principal men that Josephus says handed Jesus over to Pilate is said to come from "among us," since as Gary Goldberg points out in his 2021 article (pp. 19), "in historical narrative, Josephus takes care to write in the third person." But here he doesn't, and he combines "principal men" with "among us," which he does no where else. If Josephus just wanted to say the "principal men among us" to mean that these principal men came 'among us' in the sense of being Jewish people of his class, Josephus could have used his more common and typical phrase seen in e.g., Ant. 14.165, where Herod's accusers are "the principal ones of the Judaeans." The use of "among us " combined with "principal men" thus likely implies that Josephus knew at least some of these people and got information from them for this episode. Josephus also definitely knew the son of one of the chief priests involved in Jesus' interrogation, Ananias. It is also possible that he heard or also heard about Jesus from the Jewish leaders related to James’ death in the early 60s, when he himself was in Jerusalem and conversant with those involved in disposing Ananias II for his order to stone James. At the very least, even if Josephus did hear from Christians, he confirmed the story with his Jewish peers (as Goldberg argues). If Josephus heard about Jesus from "principal men among us" that handed Jesus over to Pilate (and Josephus' father Matthias may have been one of them), than Josephus would be 2nd hand. Either way, Josephus is probably independent for these reasons, in addition to the above,
  1. Josephus seems to have gotten his sources from non-Christians for every other Jewish preacher in first century Palestine. There is little reason to suppose Jesus was any different, especially since (a) we know that Josephus didn't search after the followers of these preachers he writes about. If he did, how else did he write about e.g., Theudas even though his followers were slain? If we know that Josephus got his information about the other first century Jewish preachers from non-Christians and people who didn't follow these preachers, why would we even think that Josephus got his information from Christians for Jesus? And this leads me to (b) - the main content of Josephus’ remarks doesn't sound like stuff e.g., like what Pliny extracted from Christians by torturing them (singing hymns to Christ as to a god, meeting for meals, etc.), or like much of what’s in early Christian texts. When we compare Josephus to texts that we know drew upon Christian sources, they are markedly different from most is not all of the TF.
  2. Josephus has a couple of points that seem to contradict Christian theology, and uses language that an early follower of Jesus wouldn't seemed to have used since it was used negatively in the NT (see the analysis above). Just because early Christianity was diverse does not mean that this argument regarding the un-Christian like language used does not hold, because nothing in Josephus' note reflects doctrine from any of the other Christian sects either, and in fact contradicts them. I think one should also speak of a majority "proto-orthodoxy" in the first and second century C.E. (see J.D. Atkins, The Doubt of the Apostles and the Resurrection Faith of the Early Church, Mohr Siebeck, 2019, pp. 58-60) as opposed to much smaller sects of early Christianity. For example, the Gnostics themselves famously referred to themselves "as a “spiritual” elite or chosen “few” over against the “many” who lacked gnosis" (ibid., 58). Even Celsus recognized at least a sort of orthodox church (Origen, Cels. 5.59–62).
  3. Josephus and Tacitus were contemporaries, fellow historians, and Tacitus' report matches Josephus' pretty well in that there is not much that Tacitus says about Jesus that isn't already in the TF. Josephus was also among the Jewish exiles who moved in the court of Titus, which Tacitus was involved in. So if Josephus was used by Tacitus as a source for Jesus, this would point to Josephus being independent from Christians, since Tacitus would probably not accept Christian information whether directly or indirectly.
submitted by BohrBrainz to AcademicBiblical [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 BadNoodle7 6-50 outlet wire length?

Kind of a dumb question: for a standard outlet, you are required to have 6” min, 12” preferred extra wire past the outlet face. Does the same same apply to larger wires? I tried to stuff a 6-50 outlet with 8” of extra wiring into a double gang and it’s just not gonna happen. The wire is too stiff (6awg). So what do need to do here?
submitted by BadNoodle7 to HomeImprovement [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 Sad-Soundcloud Sappy - Big Business

submitted by Sad-Soundcloud to RunTheTrap [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 Deiby_draw My entry into the space battle of Benny.

My entry into the space battle of Benny.
submitted by Deiby_draw to bennyproductions [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 ToddJustWorks Praise Todd Howard

Praise The Legendary Game Developer Todd Howard
submitted by ToddJustWorks to PraiseToddHoward [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 secadora What streaming platforms have the best variety of dubs in your opinion?

Right now I’m trying to study Italian and I’m looking for good places to practice listening comprehension. I’ve noticed that some streaming platforms, like Disney+, tend to have a large variety of languages, even including ones with fewer resources like Finnish and Flemish, you can watch content in as opposed to other platforms like Peacock, which very rarely has translations for even Spanish (but they do have a good variety of Spanish-language content). So I guess my question is, which streaming platforms, or I guess websites in general, have a broad variety of dubs for different languages in your experience?
submitted by secadora to languagelearning [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 tartagdoodles I just double crowned best girl

I just double crowned best girl submitted by tartagdoodles to HuTao_Mains [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 powergirlspro Tag match where everyone gets a stinkface (full match link in comments)

Tag match where everyone gets a stinkface (full match link in comments) submitted by powergirlspro to FightHumiliation [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 ToddJustWorks Praise Todd Howard

Praise The Legendary Game Developer Todd Howard
submitted by ToddJustWorks to PraiseToddHoward [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 erer1243 Currently, it's January 17, 2022 at 06:15PM

Currently, it's January 17, 2022 at 06:15PM
submitted by erer1243 to every15min [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 JacketSnacks Fluffy white bits in urine - Freaked out that I could feel it

For the past several months or so, oftentimes when I pee at night my urine is cloudy. Sometimes (this has happened at least a handful of times) it's really bad and there's a ton of fluffy white bits in it that settle to the bottom of a jar rather quickly (I pee in a jar sometimes because I have roommates and share a bathroom). So that's been pretty freaky on its own but last night when I was peeing I could literally feel clumps of stuff coming out of my urethra! Does this happen to anyone else?? And my urethra hurt at the end of the stream like bits were stuck in it. Also felt some mild flank pain afterwards which has happened before but not sure if it's psychosomatic. I have had flank pain during flares before that got worse especially on the right side when I drank a lot of water, but it always went away within a few days on its own.
Should I get my kidneys rechecked? I had an abnormal kidney ultrasound (showed kidney disease) back in 2018 but subsequent blood tests and CT scans were normal (2020). Either way I think it's time I head back to a doctor.
submitted by JacketSnacks to Interstitialcystitis [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:15 Silly_Styx E-reader that translates Dutch words to Farsi/Persian?

Looking for an e-reader with a Dutch-Farsi dictionary, or with an online translator, that can be used to read in Dutch and easily look up translations in Farsi/Persian.
submitted by Silly_Styx to ereader [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:14 AceFlashX Looking for the movie name, Animations Movie

When I was younger I watched a animations movie (played at night, was little bit brutal) where there was a station on a planet and outside there were monsters and a virus mutation like thing. The station got attacked and the protagonists needed to flee, thats the end. I think there is more than one movie to that. Its some animation type like the Resident Evil series (design) but no zombies.
Maybe somebody knows the name of it? Been looking for it for hours :D
Just post your suggestions and i will check them out.
submitted by AceFlashX to movies [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:14 MUCH_Confusion6783 Females only of reddit, what is the largest schmeat/shlong that y0u can comfortably take?

submitted by MUCH_Confusion6783 to AskReddit [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:14 Canala00045 BFP 9 DPO chart. Hopefully this one sticks 😪 the lines are already darker than my chemical ever got so hopefully!

BFP 9 DPO chart. Hopefully this one sticks 😪 the lines are already darker than my chemical ever got so hopefully! submitted by Canala00045 to TFABChartStalkers [link] [comments]

2022.01.17 20:14 EXTRMLY I laughed for 54931708954795807134890574689341670430 years

I laughed for 54931708954795807134890574689341670430 years submitted by EXTRMLY to terriblefacebookmemes [link] [comments]