Every Christian should be familiar with Josephus.

@MrBnJmmn

8 ай бұрын

If you would be more familiar with Josephus you would not be a Christian anymore. Something that the video creator apparantly is not aware of yet.

@galaxyn3214

8 ай бұрын

@@MrBnJmmn Fine, I'll bite: what thing regarding Josephus supposedly refutes Christianity?

@MrBnJmmn

8 ай бұрын

Watch these videos for preliminary research of the idea. After that do more in-depth research in Josephus' writings and other historical and logical reasoning. There is some really interesting occurences. As Jesus said; the truth will set you free. kzread.info/dash/bejne/mWhkp8WkZsq9Z7g.htmlsi=x41ChQf4MHUCjozo kzread.info/dash/bejne/rKF5tcWChcbcqpM.htmlsi=fBGKAzGp4mKiL7B_ kzread.info/dash/bejne/g62otNCrZ726f6w.htmlsi=VvsuEHtj_c1zpYyi

@manomunoz9905

8 ай бұрын

Josephus and Titus made Jesus Christ up to make the Jews worship a passive God. If you read his book The Jewish War and from the torah you can see where he got a lot of his ideas about Jesus who is the passive version of Titus Flavius who destroyed the temple but Josephus dated Jesus story 40 years back so Titus could look like the son of man Jesus was talking about on the Arch of Titus in Rome you can see that he was labeled son of man

@mohinfahim7280

8 ай бұрын

A group of Jews are directly mentioned in the Samaritans' Book of Asatir, And after the death of Abraham, Ishmael reigned twenty seven years. And all the children of Nebaot [Ishmael's son] ruled for one year in the lifetime of Ishmael, And for thirty years after his death from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates; and they built Mecca.” [The Asatir - The Samaritan Book of The “Secret of Moses; Gaster, Moses (1927). VIII, page 262] That is, the descendants of Ishmael (a.s.) began to rule during his lifetime. They built the city of Makkah. In that book, the famous Jewish historian Josephus (37 AD-100 AD) is quoted as saying: Josephus I. 12. 3. 221: "These inhabited all the countries from the Euphrates to the Red Sea, and called it Nabatene." Gen. 25. 18. Pal.Targ.: "And they dwelled from Hindikia (Indian Ocean) to Palusa (Pelusiumt which is before Egypt as thou goest to Atur (Assyria). In Kebra Ch. 83: many countries are enumerated over which Ishmael ruled "Built Mecca." That is, according to Josephus, the Ishmaelites built Mecca.

Thank you Brother I will be sending this to my friends . God bless you ! 🕊️❤️

Praying for us all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ❤️🙏🙏🙏🙏❤

@SheepofChrist818

9 ай бұрын

@@godspeed7717Jesus is his name.

@michaelbrown1650

7 ай бұрын

Amen

@godspeed7717

7 ай бұрын

@@michaelbrown1650 🫵🫷☝️🤲🫶🤝

@josephsimontacchi2285

Ай бұрын

Thank you

Great videos man, I binge watched them all❤

This is awesome. Thanks for breaking it down in such a short video.

Wooow this is very well done and articulated

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

I appreciate that , God bless!

Thanks a great video you have provided

I appreciate what you're doing keep up the good work

@SanctusApologetics

6 ай бұрын

Thank you!

Thank you for this video and good explanations. God bless!

comment feed back 🙏

❤ thanks for the no background sounds

Good stuff man. Thank you.

I know of 2 Jewish Pharisees that believed that Jesus was Christ, Nicodemus and Paul. Also there was Joseph of Arimathia and on the Day of Pentecost 5,000 Jews and converts to Judaism believed Jesus was Christ. So saying that the writings of Josephus had been tampered with because he was a Jewish Pharisee I believe is a weak assumption.

@rendafranker7088

4 ай бұрын

Exactly.

@RexKochanski

3 ай бұрын

What about his claim that the Messianic prophecies had been fulfilled by a Roman general?

@donquixote3927

Ай бұрын

Yes, it is just as likely the Arabic tradition, mentioned in the video, had been adjusted to suit a muslim narrative.

Beautiful mate✝️.

Thank you so much

I appreciate your perspective.

Great work!

Great video man 🙏

I love it. Keep up the good work. Jesus was not a figure in fables or myths but the world Messiah

God Bless

Good job, this is important.

Good video

Great job brother ❤

It doesn't tell us much, but it does tell us something crucial

Thank you for this history. I have a English book written by Josephus, not certain the quotes are in this book, but now I will attempt to read this now.

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Awesome, thank you for the feedback! Hopefully you have time, because Josephus wrote a lot!

@edwardkim8972

8 ай бұрын

It's not in Jewish Wars. It's in Antiquities, book 18.

I admit, it has been decades since I read, Tacitus’ Annals, and I have never directly read, but only heard of or read of Josephus, however, there must be something more to the controversy about the potential for forged works. We know that members of the Sanhedrin were followers of Jesus, and initially almost all followers of Jesus wereJews. In fact, the Christians did not consider themselves anything other than faithful Jews initially. It cannot be that merely being a Jew meant you could not believe that Jesus was the Christ. There must be something else or else I do not see how a translation made nearly a millennium later would be considered more reliable than a more contemporary one. Are there other contemporary translations that seem to match the later Arabic translation? Otherwise, this seems to be nothing more than an assumption, probably based upon the personal assumptions/biases of historians, that may or may not be true but has no particular strength behind it.

@jesusislordforever5518

Жыл бұрын

Question for you, what do you mean by forged works?

@johnscotto5045

Жыл бұрын

@@jesusislordforever5518 Some of the earlier copies of Josephus' works have what seems to verge on a profession of belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Many scholars say that was an addition or change made by Christian writers reflecting their own belief rather than the writer's. They often use a much later Arabic translation which does not reflect that particular statement and reason that a Jew would not have made such a statement. However, since there were Pharisees who secretly followed Jesus, to me, the argument that a Jew wouldn't write that is not a convincing argument. That's why I opined that surely there must be something more to a valid objection.

@DrSales-zl3kq

11 ай бұрын

I agree with what you’re saying. he actually blamed the Jews for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah that’s very clear, if you read it carefully. the question I have is it possible that Josephus was actually a Jew that believed in Jesus? if you look at his writing it may be so. This idea that no jew would ever right that has never sit well with me

Well done!

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! God bless

How do you ensure that you have an Arabic transcript of the writings? Where can I find this?

@Slo-ryde

3 ай бұрын

Was thinking the same.

Hey man, Sanctus, I have a question please. What is the name of the symbol in your youtube channel image ? It's a cross that has an X as well. I searched for it and only could find Saint Andrew's Cross, but it doesn't have the vertical line. Is there a specific name for that symbol? Thanks Also found chi rho but yours is not a P on the top, just a vertical line.

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

It’s called the “IX monogram”, which takes the first letter of Jesus’s first name in greek and last name and puts them together, God bless!

@RaduP3

Жыл бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics Thank you. God bless you

Thanks for this. In my opinion the undoctored version is so good, there was no need for the early Christians to tamper with it.

If Jesus was a real historically person, then I believe his message that he is reliable and the truth. Blessed be our Lord!

@John_Lyle

8 ай бұрын

The key word in you post is *"IF"* There is no contemporary record from either biblical or non biblical sources, and there are no historical records from on biblical sources that confirm the assertions made in the bible.

@eliezerbonilla8546

8 ай бұрын

@@John_Lyle Jesus was a Historical person, he was a real space time person. No way you are actually saying he was not real. Right?

@John_Lyle

8 ай бұрын

@@eliezerbonilla8546 So aas he a yiung child during the reign of Herod the great, or was he still pre-born during the census of Quirinius which occurred just over ten years after the death of Herod the great? What Roman, Greek, Jewish, or Egyptian records exist that mention a three hour darkness over the land or an extendex solar eclipse at a time of tbe month when the sun cannot be eclipsed? Jesus of Nazareth is no more a historical entity than Bilbo Baggins.

@eliezerbonilla8546

8 ай бұрын

I'm sorry @@John_Lyle, I can tell just by your spelling that you are not an intellectual person. I understand why you don't know history or even care about it. Even well know historians say Jesus was a real space time being. The majority of them just don't believe in his message, but Jesus really did exist.

@John_Lyle

8 ай бұрын

@@eliezerbonilla8546 Fat fingers on a cellphone keyboard do not make the question invalid. If Jesus was a young child during the reign of Herod the great, how come he was still "in utero" more than a decade later, following Augustus Caesar deposing Archelaus, Herod's successor?

Questions: Wasn't this passage accepted as authentic when cited by Eusebious in the 4th Century? Is Eusebious considered a reliable source? Did Origen ever mention this passage?

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

There is a historical core when Eusebius of Caesarea mentioned it , but either he or some other later christian writer added on the Josephus’s sayings and tainted it.

@prrboricua

Жыл бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics @SanctusApologetics No. It is worse. It seems no other Church father, Origen included, ever mention this passage until Eusebious. Is it possible that he is, in fact, the creator of this interpolation?

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

@@prrboricua It’s very possible , as far as i’ve researched , he could be a candidate for this interpolation. Although based on Eusebius and who he is , i tend to think he received this interpolation from someone else and he thought it was real. But of course that’s all speculation

@edwardkim8972

8 ай бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics how is that possible if PARCHMENT versions of the Antiquities existed that was probably very close to when the autographs were written? Parchment lasts hundreds of years. We still have Codex Sinaiticus and that was written in the 330's A.D.

Why doubt (or need to prove) the existence of "Love" anytime?

I think every Christian should learn about the historical Jesus so we can defend our faith.

I thank you for your honesty about the tampered quotes but it would have been nice to hear them as well. The reasoning that he belonged to a certain religious sect sounds a bit off. There where other followers of his who shared the same beliefs as Josephus and still, or rather, because of it, they followed Christ. The mindset of God's Kingdom surpassed religion. That was the whole point of Jesus' teaching.

And the evidence for the text being changed by scribes is what exactly?

John the Baptist did so much to help people

@sadflamer23

6 күн бұрын

Of course he’s Jesus’s cousin

Could Josephus be seen as a New Testament writer?

Pharisees believed in the Resurrection of the dead would come, the Sadducees did not. Therefore, Christs Resurrection would have been appealing and rang true to him.

Now do Suetonian and Pliny the Younger.

Excellent , very balanced . I had never heard the Arabic version

@KnowingGodExplorers

6 ай бұрын

That's because it doesn't exist. There are only 2 languages. 1 in Aramaic (which went missing forever) and another in Greek. The greek copy is feared flawed because it was written to the Romans (Greeks) and Josephus was being held by the Romans. So the real question is, DID the original Aramaic jewish version have different writings in it? Most scholars believe it did.

@BHbh221

3 ай бұрын

@@KnowingGodExplorersyou’re joking, right? The Aramaic language went missing? 😂

@RexKochanski

3 ай бұрын

I came across quotes of what seems to be a third version, in an appendix to a Penguin Books printing of Josephus' "The Jewish War". This is derived from a Slavonic translation that may have been made from an earlier Aramaic version of Josephus' "Jewish War" which he mentions in the later (self-censored?) standard version written in Greek for a Roman audience during the reign of the Christian-persecuting Emperor Domitian. However that might be, the Slavonic translation contains additional references to Jesus "the so-called Christ" (otherwise rather similar to the so-called "interpolation") and followers : "In the time of Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander many of the wonder-worker's followers came forwards and declared to the adherents of their master that, although he had died, he was now alive and would free them from their slavery. Many of the common people listened to their preaching and accepted their call.... Seeing the unsettlement of the people, these excellent procurators decided after consulting the scribes to arrest the men and put them to death, for fear that the movement, though of no consequence at the moment, might end in a major upheaval. But in face of the wonders worked, they hesitated... surmising if these works were not divine they would soon be shown up. Later, however, they were persuaded by the scribes to send them to Rome or Antioch to be tried, banishing others to distant countries." There's more, but the hour grows late...

Did you say 10th century for this writting? if so this was copied from Josephus from 93 ad. Also Philo never mentions jesus and Philo was alive and writting in the first half of the first century.

@RexM-od1vt

3 ай бұрын

Okay snopes hasn't made an article about you, do you even exist?

I never knew Josephus was a pharisee. This is very interesting. thank you !

Why was he given the name Flavius by the Flavian Emperor?

@RexKochanski

3 ай бұрын

It was common for Roman slaves to be given their master's family name as a first name; I guess they found it more dignified and compact than calling, "Hey, you, yes, you you slave of the Flavians!" all the time.

for the algorithm!

How and why do scholars feel this part was forged? Because he was a Pharisee? Paul too was a Pharisee. Maybe during this time of his writing he too became a follower of Christ. But didn’t announce it so loudly. I’m just asking.

I'm a atheist but not a mythicist I believe Jesus was a historical person but the gospels aren't reliable in my opinion for various reasons such as they weren't written by eye witnesses and were anonymous third person narratives. Josephus was writing later as well and may have been writing his thoughts from what he'd heard around that time as opposed to it being true. I defo think all Christians today should know about Josephus tho.

@SanctusApologetics

6 ай бұрын

I would actually argue they were written by eye witnesses based on men who knew the aposltes relaying the authorship for us(i’ve made videos on this). But none the less we can still get a clear picture through Paul who actually knew the aposltes/ eyewitnesses

@ExclamationPeriodQuestionMark

3 ай бұрын

Not necessarily. The author of John said he was an eyewitness. Luke interviewed eyewitnesses himself, and he was present in a lot of the events of Acts. Matthew and Mark, while I am not sure, may have been eyewitnesses and/or interviewed eyewitnesses.

According the bible he turned jerusalem upside down big time during eastern but still there is nothing written about it outside later bible stories by real contemporary historians. So he is just a legend.

@RexKochanski

3 ай бұрын

Um ...why do you suppose Jesus would be crucified by Pontius Pilate as Josephus stated? For jaywalking in Jerusalem? Makes you want to write your best attempt at "Romans go home", on a wall, and then a centurion catches you, corrects your grammar, and commands you to write it C times! Maybe something like overturned tables in the Court of the Gentiles makes more sense, or people acclaiming someone King? The latter claim happened often enough that the details might not be interesting enough to include in a long chronicle, except for the form of the Roman response.

Wasn't He called Joshua? Why would Josephus use the Name Jesus.

I am old and my vision is very poor. It was about 50 years ago were i calculated my own idea of when Jesus was born. It was what would have been around the third week of January by our calendar. But more importantly it placed his presentation in the temple at 40 days of age on the day before passover. There were present many שלג at that time. This word translates as "greatly advanced in years" in the case of Jesse. Although it more commonly means "snow," it has the intetesting numerical value of 300 + 30+ 3. Anna never left the temple night or day which means she lived there in the cloisters. When Jesus was brought in for dedication, she summoned the others. It was Simeone who announced giving up the ghost, but all of this group had lived to see the event which would necessarily have been the last temple event of the afternoon. The following morning the bodies were found. I had pretty much forgotten about this when i noticed that Easter fell on March 1 this year. I cannot recall what year Josephus recorded as the year. The bodies oresent were blamed on a prank of Samaritans. I am hoping you can tell me the year. I will be most grateful. FYI, i also recall that Bethlehem was significant for it's lambs. Although i couldnt find a modern breed of white sheep that had its lambing season at the time of Christ's birth, itis not an impossibility. Important is that Bethlehem was the location of Solomon"s brood mares. I can imagine he would have had the best of stone structures for stables and cedar box stalls. Because the N.T. word "manger" also means stall, i always smile when i read that Joseph, mary and the baby were found in the manger. (Perhaps a misunderstanding on my part.) Few people take notice of the horse as a Biblical symbol of the host of heaven. We see pharoah's army as the horse of the army of the adversary in Miriam's song. "The horse is a vain thing for safety" gives us a word picture of a morphology of the Lord's salvation of another horse. Jah's horse as Je-sus, the salvation of God. It is not really true that "all is vanity." All things are by Jesus and of Jesus who is the word. And, now, the clincher. When even Elijah feared Jezebel, who came in through the horse gate to trample her to death. The blood would be, i believe, on the wall as high as a horse's bridle. Salvation came in the form of a horse. This is a week when we are partcularly aware that Israel is the Lord's majestic horse in battle, as IDF battles Hamas.. Whether horse or lamb, Bethlehem if fsmous for both. My own stallion was born early in foaling season on April 2. I am hoping this information might be a small offering in exchange for the year those bodies were found in the temple. It may completely undo my logic, but i would really like to know. please forgive my typos

Whatever Josephus had to say about Jesus is second hand as he wasn't born until 37 AD.

@SanctusApologetics

10 ай бұрын

That’s how most ancient history is, for example Alexander the Greats first account came centuries after him , yet no historian doubts the accounts.

For the algorithm :)

Great video. I have seen some atheists/agnostics say Jesus was never buried and just left to rot on the cross. They have referenced some of what Josephus wrote about those who were crucified and how Pontius Pilate wouldn’t have allowed for him to be buried after the crucifixion. To them this ends the idea of him being buried then resurrected. They also state Joseph of Arimathea was made up since Jesus needed a wealthy person’s tomb to be buried in. I’m writing a rebuttal to one of their claims now, but am curious as to what you think.

@John_Lyle

8 ай бұрын

You can start you rebuttal by citing the coordinates for the place called Arimathea. Or can you?

@jamesfahey5686

8 ай бұрын

@@John_Lyle ​​⁠ I mean I have obviously heard your question before. I was curious as to what Sanctus thought. You seem to be the type who thinks the writers just threw a random wealthy Jewish man into the Bible. To your point about Arimathea, understand there have been cities/towns in the Bible that archeologists and historians thought did not exist or they did not know where they were located, only to be found later. An example of this would be the City of David. Michael Jones does a good job refuting the idea Joseph of Arimathea was a made up character in this video kzread.info/dash/bejne/gqyL26psnKmpe9Y.html

@christienelson1437

7 ай бұрын

@@jamesfahey5686 I do not feel that your points of view are impossible but Josephus wasn’t a very credible historian or Jewish representative. He took credit for many other peoples writings, said at fourteen he was teaching Rabbis, hanged out with Roman leaders and helped them destroy Jewish temples… So it is hard to use him as a valid historical or religious reference. His own writings prove this.

@jamesfahey5686

7 ай бұрын

@@christienelson1437 So what evidence/sources do you have that support the claim Joseph of Arimathea was made up?

Good job brother

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

i appreciate it ,have a blessed day !!

Sanctus, what you are forgetting is that even before this reference of an Arabic text there is Jerome, who quoted the Testimonium Flavianum in Latin, in his own time, the late 4th century. In this version that Jerome is familiar with (in the late 4th century) it goes as (from the Latin to English translation): "In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from him, exists to the present day." So, instead of "He was the Messiah" that we have in our versions, Jerome's version says "was believed to be Christ." Other than that Jerome's Testimonium Flavianum's is very near identical to ours. Jerome wrote this in his work "Of Illustrious Men," which was published widely, so this quote from Josephus could be cross checked by anybody during his time period, so it's highly unlikely it was fabricated. Additionally, both Origen (in the late 2nd century) and Eusebius (in the early 4th century) also mention the existence of the Testimonium Flavianum in their works as well. Origen and Eusebius' works were also apologetics works meant to be read by skeptics so it would also be highly unlikely that Origen and Eusebius would fabricate something that was designed to be scrutinized by non-Christian skeptics in their respective time periods. Origen has the added commentary of Josephus mentioning the word Messiah, but Josephus himself didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah, according to Origen's commentary.

@John_Lyle

8 ай бұрын

Origen made no metion of the Testimonium Flavianum, and in fact he admitted in his work "Contra Celsum" that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. In reality the most prbable source of the testimonium Flavianum was the pen of Eusebius. The terms used in the TF were not the pedestrian style of Josephus but were the evangelical zeal of Eusebius using terms that while familiar to any fourth century Christian reader would have been confusing to a first or early second century Roman. Furthermore the closing line _"and the sect of Christians, so named from him, exists to the present day."_ is meaningless in Josephus' time, there were still many messianic groups still active that Josephus had commented on, but still existing three hundred years later is more of an acheivement. Incidentally the Greek word used for "Sect" is not used by Josephus anywhere else but *was* commonly used by Eusebius.

@edwardkim8972

8 ай бұрын

@@John_Lyle yes. I read the "Contra Celsum" and the context was specifically about James the Just (or James, the brother of Jesus) and the subject of the text was whether or not the death of James the Just contributed to the first Jewish-Roman wars of 66 C.E. Thus, to outline the entire TF wasn't necessary. However, Origen merely alluding to the TF in a passage about James the Just makes sense. Also, the version of the TF that Jerome gave us in Latin better coincides with what Origen said about Josephus not believing that Jesus was the Messiah. And saying that Eusebius was wrong or fabricated the TF entirely doesn't make sense. The imperial and senatorial library system in the major cities of the Roman Empire was very much still intact by the early 4th century so any critic of Christians or Eusebius (or the Emperor Constantine, for that matter) could look up a copy of Josephus' Antiquities (book 18) and verify for themselves if Eusebius (or Jerome) was lying / exaggerating. As skeptical scholar (and head of the famous "Jesus Seminar") John Dominic Crossan said, there would have been severe consequences if Christians at the time, when that religion gained acceptance by the Roman government, fabricated evidence in a work that was COMMISSIONED by a Roman Emperor. Furthermore, although the term "sect" may not have been used elsewhere in Antiquities, many other aspects of the TF show clear "Josephusisms" such as "about this time," and "principal men," common phraseology that Josephus uses throughout his works. Yes, I've read the entire Antiquities.

@edwardkim8972

8 ай бұрын

@@John_Lyle also, have you read Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical Histories"? I have and nowhere did I notice any "evangelical zeal." Histories was written for a skeptical Roman crowd and commissioned (i.e. paid for) by the Emperor Constantine. The point of Histories was to demonstrate to Roman skeptics that Christianity was governed by the same logical principles of old school Roman and Greek philosophies. In Histories Eusebius doubts that the epistles of 2 Peter and Jude as being genuine and advocated that they NOT be included in canon. Additionally, Eusebius also doubts that Revelations / Apocalypse of John was written by John the Apostle, the Son of Zebedee and the apparent author of the Gospel of that same name and the three Johannine epistles. Eusebius goes into pretty good length as to why the author of the fourth Gospel couldn't have been the author of Revelations / Apocalypse, going so far as to say that Revelations has bad Greek grammar full of grammatical "barbarisms." I suggest you actually read Eusebius before you make such blanket judgements about his Histories.

@John_Lyle

8 ай бұрын

@@edwardkim8972 The following timeline is taken from a work by Neil Godfrey. It sums up the TF far better than I am able to 93 CE Josephus: The book Jewish Antiquities by Josephus is published in Rome. . . Manuscripts surviving today also contain a description of Jesus. But was this description present in the year 93? Josephus, in deference to the sensibilities of his Roman protectors, is at pains to avoid any mention of Jewish Messianic hopes. The only reference to a Messiah is in the description of Jesus and Christians which first appear with Eusebius. ca.140’s CE Justin Martyr writes lengthy polemics against the unbelief of Jews and pagans and arguments for Christianity. No reference to Josephus. Had Josephus written about Jesus, positive or negative, could such works have remained unknown to Justin? ca.170’s CE Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch writes lengthy polemics against pagan refusal to believe in Christianity. No reference to Jesus in Josephus, although he cites Josephus in his Apology to Autolycus, Bk 3, ch. 23. ca.180’s CE Irenaeus writes at length against unbelief without any reference to a work by Josephus. “[I]t is clear that Irenaeus was unfamiliar with Book 18 of ‘Antiquities’ since he wrongly claims that Jesus was executed by Pilate in the reign of Claudius (Dem. ev. ap. 74), while Antiquities 18.89 indicates that Pilate was deposed during the reign of Tiberius, before Claudius” (Wikipedia’s citation of Whealey’s ‘Josephus on Jesus’). Had Josephus discussed Jesus how could Irenaeus have been ignorant of the fact? Surely some knowledge of such a passage in the famous Jewish historian would have reached Irenaeus and others. Fragment XXXII from the lost writings of Irenaeus, however, does know Josephus - see 32:53. ca.190’s CE Clement of Alexandria wrote extensively in defence of Christianity against pagan hostility. He knew Josephus’ works - see Stromata Book 1 Chater 21. No reference to any mention of Jesus by Josephus. ca.200’s CE Tertullian wrote lengthy apolegetics against unbelief and in justification of Christianity. No reference to a passage about Jesus by Josephus. But he elsewhere knows Josephus’ works - see Apologeticum ch.19. ca.200’s CE Minucius Felix, another apologist, no references to Jesus from Josephus, although he knows and cites Josephus - see chapter 33. ca.210’s CE Hippolytus wrote volumes of apologetics but appears to know nothing of a reference to Jesus by Josephus. Fragments of his works - see On Jeremiah and Ezekiel.145 - show he knows Josephus. ca.220’s CE Sextus Julius Africanus was a Christian historian who is not known to cite Josephus’s passage on Jesus although he did know of Josephus‘s works - see Chatper 17.38 of his Chronography. ca.230’s CE Origen knows Josephus: four citations of Josephus are found here, but none reference a Jesus passage in Josephus. cites a passage in Josephus on the death of James “the brother of Jesus” (Book 20 of the Antiquities); states Josephus did not believe in Jesus (Origen in fact notes that Josephus proclaimed the Roman emperor Vespasian as the long awaited world ruler of biblical prophecy). summarized what Josephus said about John the Baptist in Book 18. said Josephus attributed destruction of Jerusalem to murder of James the Just (something not found in our copies of the works of Josephus) - (Josephus actually implies the destruction of Jerusalem was punishment for the murder of Ananias). does not cite any reference to Jesus from Josephus. ca.240’s CE Cyprian (North Africa) prolific apologist with no reference to Jesus in Josephus. ca.270’s CE Anatolius, demonstrates his knowledge of Josephus in his Paschal Canon, chapter 3. No reference to Jesus in Josephus. ca.290’s CE Arnobius (North Africa) prolific apologist with no reference to Jesus in Josephus. ca.300’s CE Methodius, a Church Father who opposed Origen, and cites Josephus (see On the Resurrection - the citation is misplaced at the bottom of the page) but makes no reference to a Jesus passage in Josephus. ca.300’s CE Lactantius (North Africa) prolific apologist with no reference to Jesus in Josephus. ca.324 CE Eusebius quotes a reference in Josephus to Jesus that survives today in all manuscripts: _"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."_ Some expressions in the above are Josephan, but used in a way contrary to how Josephus uses them elsewhere. Some expressions are characteristic of those found in other writings of Eusebius. More on this in a future post. Eusebius in fact cites this passage three times - in three of his works - to assert a reputable Jewish support for the good character of Jesus: Demonstratio Evangelica History of the Church Theophany This is the first appearance of the Testimonium and the fact that it contains some echoes of Josephus' style is unsurprising, it is intended to be passed off as genuine words of Josephus, but the fact that it also varies wildly from the attitudes of a first century Pharisee and fails to explain terms that while instinctive to a fourth century Christian would requre explanation to a first century Roman. Also woth noting is that Josephus was entrely underwhelmed by "The Egyptian" despite mentioning him in both his "Jewish war" and "Antiquities of the Jews, and nor was he impressed that the followers of Judas of Galilee, the Zealots, still had a following even though the Zealots predated the Christians and were still causing trouble in AD47 when Judas' sons James and Simon were executed. In fact the Zealots continued to cause problems until long after Josephus had died and yet he was entirely unimpressed by their continuing support. Suport for a movement still existing after four hundred years is however more impressive, and Eusebius was certainly impressed by his own cleverness, which was why he made such comments as _"I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion"_ *Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica* and _"But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?"_

@John_Lyle

8 ай бұрын

@@edwardkim8972 I had to split my response, this is a continuation of the post of a minute ago. Othere reiterations of the TF include the following _"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and his learning outstanding. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."_ *Agapius* and _At that time also a man came forward-if even it is fitting to call him man (simply). His nature as well as his form were a man’s; but his showing forth was more than (that) of a man. His works, that is to say, were godly and he wrought wonder deeds amazing and full of power. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man (simply). But again looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel. And all that he wrought through some kind of invisible power, he wrought by word and command. Some said of him that ‘our first Law-giver has risen from the dead and shows forth many cures and arts’. But others supposed (less definitely) that he is sent by God. Now he opposed himself in much to the Law, and did not observe the Sabbath according to ancestral custom. Yet, on the other hand, he did nothing reprehensible nor any crime, but by word solely he effected everything. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would free themselves from the Romans’ hands. Now it was his custom often to stop on the Mount of Olives, facing the city. And there also be avouched his curse to the people._ _And he gathered themselves to him of servants a hundred and fifty, but of the folk a multitude. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate, and rule over us. But that one scorned it. And thereafter when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they gathered together with the high priest and spoke: ‘We are powerless and weak to withstand the Romans. But as withal the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and we will be without distress, lest if he hear it from others, we be robbed of our substance and ourselves be put to the sword and our children ruined.’ And they went and told it to Pilate._ _And he sent and had many of the people cut down. And he had that wonder-doer brought up. And when he had instituted a trial concerning him he perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evil-doer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and let him free. He had, you should know, healed his dying wife. And he went to his accustomed place and wrought his accustomed works. And as again more folk gathered themselves together round him, then did he win glory through his works more than all._ _The teachers of the law were (therefore) envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. And he, after he had taken the money, gave consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose, and they took and crucified him according to the ancestral law._ *"Slavonic Josephus" c11th - 12th century* Somebody really got carried away on that last one

YES, Heard of Flavious Josephus. HMMMMM!! FROM, U.K. (2024).

Since, “He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away.” ITIS VERY LIKELY JOSEPHUS KNEW JESUS WAS THE CHRIST, regardless of the fact he was a Pharisee. Paul was a Pharisee too.

@chapmaned24

3 ай бұрын

Ya, but Paul had a personal encounter with Jesus.

Josephus who was born Born: 37 AD heard about Jesus in church

I am a believer and am trying to find extra biblical evidence for Jesus. I understand how people don’t consider the testimonium as being authentic. But how can we trust something from the 10th century?

@SanctusApologetics

2 ай бұрын

Just because it’s late doesn’t mean it’s unreliable, for example the earliest manuscript we have of Tacitus’s annals of the history of Rome comes from the 10 century as well, yet no scholar doubts its authenticity overall.

Makes more sense for Josephus wasn’t born before Jesus died. It appears that he copied many writings from others and acted in ways not consistent with other Jewish traditions. Josephus was very close to Roman leaders and was considered a trader because of this and his actions were documented in his own writings. Since we don’t have many other documents about this time period as a historical point of view he is well read but not respected as accurate recordings. I feel that the writing you demonstrated from Josephus about Jesus may be accurate for it portrays Jesus as a Prophet and many Jews may have then seen him as such. Everything else may be a bit bogus in many areas.

so there was a charismatic cult leader, about which josephus heard about, in stories second or even third hand.

Joseph's writings should be classified as New Testament material.

A group of Jews are directly mentioned in the Samaritans' Book of Asatir, And after the death of Abraham, Ishmael reigned twenty seven years. And all the children of Nebaot [Ishmael's son] ruled for one year in the lifetime of Ishmael, And for thirty years after his death from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates; and they built Mecca.” [The Asatir - The Samaritan Book of The “Secret of Moses; Gaster, Moses (1927). VIII, page 262] That is, the descendants of Ishmael (a.s.) began to rule during his lifetime. They built the city of Makkah. In that book, the famous Jewish historian Josephus (37 AD-100 AD) is quoted as saying: Josephus I. 12. 3. 221: "These inhabited all the countries from the Euphrates to the Red Sea, and called it Nabatene." Gen. 25. 18. Pal.Targ.: "And they dwelled from Hindikia (Indian Ocean) to Palusa (Pelusiumt which is before Egypt as thou goest to Atur (Assyria). In Kebra Ch. 83: many countries are enumerated over which Ishmael ruled "Built Mecca." That is, according to Josephus, the Ishmaelites built Mecca.

Creating Christ

History of the Jews is an easy quick read and interesting.

followers of Christ i dont believe that they would manipulate his writings i believe there were honest

Josephese reads the gospels and mentions their leader on his book? And this proves..... history??

Many Pharisees became Christians

There's no problem with a Pharasee believing Jesus we know some did before and after His resurrection Nicodemus asks how he can be reborn Joseph of Arimathea obviously became a Christian Saul/Paul was a Pharasee before he was converted Even his teacher was pretty convinced It would be Saducee faction that would have the bigger problem their idea was a secular God rewarding the here and now Not Angels and hereafter stuff Josephus was probably not sure of what he believed when he says if indeed he was just a man The Jews never understood what Genesis was telling them had to happen that they had to be made perfect by a messiah because they were in a new situation of knowlege now and knowledge brings responsibility

In Josephus's writings, The Hellosus, he describes Jesus as being short with Black skin. This creates a problem for the European Jew in Israel. Therefore they must discredit this writing.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. kzread.info/dash/bejne/rKF5tcWChcbcqpM.htmlsi=VS0n5J8z6qfq7Ee_

Josephus, like the unknown men who first wrote the gospels, are retelling stories they heard over 50 - 100 years. None were live during this period. There is zero documentation. Just retelling stories they head years and years earlier by others that heard these stories.

Bar-jesus ...bar ..kochba

Fk it. When you can't relay the Word of God without Josephus.

A messiah was an anointed man, there were others before, not meaning that they were worshiped as gods. Of course the Roman empire dominated the jews therefore a manipulation of historical facts belong to the victor. To believe in Jesus as a messiah meant you did not accept Roman dominion therefore you were ready to take arms against Rome. In modern days you would be considered a terrorist.

You’ve made a leap of logic. That Jesus and John were historical characters, we can take with relative certainty. That the gospels are stories of Jesus and John told about them after their deaths, doesn’t mean they are historically accurate. They are stories about historical characters, not necessarily factual accounts of history or events. The gospel stories were written to make sense of Jesus’s death. The gospels do nothing but tell us how his followers came to think about Jesus and one sees a clear evolution of that thinking over the decades from the Gospel of Mark to the Gospel of John.

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Sure , but the gospels do contain elements which tie back to the original apostles teachings and to Jesus himself . Specifically with John the baptist , i don’t doubt any scholar denies what is written about him in the gospels as not historical. If you wanna say their are embellishments in the gospels , fine , but they still contain a historical core according to scholarship .

@rogermccullough7789

Жыл бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics No disagreement. There is historicity throughout the Bible, but the stories around the historical figures and events are many times an author’s attempt to create an identity and involve retrospective interpretations of history and events that occurred earlier. My point is that the biblical stories may hold more validity theologically that historically.

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

@@rogermccullough7789 Ya i understand , i personally don’t think the first chapters of genesis are history ,i think they are describing theology . With the gospels that somewhat occurs , especially in John, but i would attest to the various teachings of Jesus to be reliable , many scholars agree with this view as well.

@rogermccullough7789

Жыл бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics I think you and I are in agreement on the basic issues. I tend to give weight to the historical validity of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels, even if the settings and circumstances around them as portrayed in the stories might be more literary than historical. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, while it does contain historical information, is, I think, primarily a theological work.

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

@@rogermccullough7789 I think we agree , i do think Johns gospel is a theological work more or less. I don’t hold to a strict view of the bible , or if it being literal in every case , so i think we can agree on this historically .

Do some critical thinking. Don’t just take the word of people that don’t want it to be true as fact. Just because some people that don’t want Jesus to be the Christ say that that was a a doctored quote, don’t just assume that that’s accurate. Use your brain. We already know that there were Jews that accepted Christ, in fact, many of them, including Saul who became Paul and Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus. So just because these people say that he couldn’t have been a believer because he was a devout Jew is a bold face lie. In fact I am a Jew. I almost went to rabbinical school. Yet I believe is that also a lie?

The only reason that Josephus' name is relivant is because of Jesus! Otherwise, I wouldn't be interested in what he had to say.

Josephus was not alive during jesus life so he got his information from someone else.

@SanctusApologetics

5 ай бұрын

That’s how most of history has been documented.

@trabob4438

5 ай бұрын

But most history has more outside the bible references so this could be a story that he copied from Josephus and remember the one that he was quoting from is 10th century. Also Philo was alive at the time of jesus and never said a word about him. @@SanctusApologetics

@ExclamationPeriodQuestionMark

3 ай бұрын

So if there were famous figures at the time of Churchill who did not mention Churchill, and had no manuscripts written by them throughout their life, does that challenge Churchill's existence? The point is, Josephus mentioned Jesus. Is Herodotus unreliable because he wasn't there for the events he documented? No. Only when it comes to Jesus, no matter how much evidence you give, they will still deny Jesus existence. I am not saying you are denying he existed because I do not know your view, but really, dude? @@trabob4438

This actually goes against Christian apologist’s arguments: a 1st century person named Jesus in history does not prove one iota of the theological Jesus that New Testament writers and church fathers created. Jesus existing as a person does not mean that he is the true messiah, divine, that he is God, that worship that God commanded for himself only is now diverted to another - Jesus, that the Torah was abrogated, that Jesus had anything to do with being a sacrifice for sin, etc. It’s akin to saying that Joel Olstein exists therefore he’s divine, the messiah, a sacrifice to atone for all sin, is God, etc. Completely invalid and erroneous. Since all of these things about the theological Jesus are invalided by the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus is and the New Testament is invalid, heretical and a false religion.

@vincentswift7

Жыл бұрын

Silly the church fathers didn't create anything they passed on what they were taught by the apostles St John was still alive when the Pope was Clement to confirm what he witnessed

@wrobinnes

Жыл бұрын

This video doesn’t make the claim that the writings of Josephus prove Jesus was the messiah. It’s just evidence for a historical Jesus. It’s fashionable to say that Jesus never existed.

@fukenbiker

10 ай бұрын

​@@wrobinnesIf this dead-god-on-a-stick has anything important to impart to humanity, he should have scribbled something in stone with his finger.

@wrobinnes

10 ай бұрын

@@fukenbiker the same could be said for any historical figure, right? Doesn't mean they didn't exist.

If he existed. Then why aren't Christians, Jewish? Jesus was Jewish. His following were Jewish. His dog was Jewish. Or a Democrat. So why would you throw away the religion of Jesus and follow the teaching of Paul??

@SanctusApologetics

8 ай бұрын

Jesus allowed people from ethnic groups to be saved , not just jews

@ExclamationPeriodQuestionMark

3 ай бұрын

First off, he came for the lost sheep of Israel Matthew 15:24. And for the other guy, Christianity isn't "jewish". Judaism is the traditions of the elders, the babylonian talmud, a corruption of the OT. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the OT, which means it is christian.@@SanctusApologetics

@RexKochanski

3 ай бұрын

His dog was Jewish? Do you proclaim another 🐶 dogspel? After all it was Paul who said that even if he himself, or an angel, proclaimed a different gospel, let him be accursed. Jesus was so Jewish that He full-filled the Law of Moses, doing away with only the ceremonial parts that pointed to the coming Messiah, that were no longer necessary.

What this points too is that Jesus and John the Baptist existed. They were MEN...real men but men none the less.. evidence is not proof.

Yes because evolution did it 😂

The original J..C. is Julius Ceasar. The living God. Truly

@RexKochanski

3 ай бұрын

Truly, emperor-worship or anyhow official Roman gods were the major reason Christians were persecuted: they refused to worship any god but the Creator through "Christ our God....They accuse us of madness for worshipping a crucified criminal, but they do not know the Mystery therein." (St. Justin, appealing to the Emperor Antoninus for an end to persecution of Christians, c. A.D. 150).

He never used the name jesus . He used Yeshua as that was his name . There was no such thing at jesus back then lol thats a brand new name used by the christian sons of the pope

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Yeshua is hebrew, we speak english and the Josephus verse which i quoted is translated to english so we can understand that includes Yeshuas name to Jesus

@eddiehathcock-cw9nv

Жыл бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics you do not get Jesus if you translate Yeshua into English silly you get Joshua . The Vatican TRANSLITERATED the Father's name right out of the son's name and calls him Jesus .I I love him to much to commit that heresy. And so should you

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

@@eddiehathcock-cw9nv So English didn't exist for centuries and Yeshua in the original greek scriptures is written as Ιησούς , when you translate that into English you get Jesus. So Jesus is a translation in English from the original greek scriptures because the New Testament Wass written greek. And stop fantasying about the Pope, its a little weird.

@eddiehathcock-cw9nv

Жыл бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics a transliteration takes out the root meaning . Witch is Yahweh written in it . Jesus means nothing it is a name completely void of meaning it is vain . Empty meaningless and even void of power . Jesus was born on the wrong day crucified on the wrong day was only in the grave for 2 nights 2 days changed his Father's Sabbath eats st. Barnard pork and mouse tells people the Torha is done away with and more vanity that that . Oh Jesus is not nor can it ever be the same person As YESHUA SORRY . YOUR IN THE MIDDLE OF A GREAT DECEPTION

@eddiehathcock-cw9nv

Жыл бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics your Jesus was born on Dec. 25 . My Yeshua was born on the feast of mangers just like scripture says . Those dates are MOUNTHS apart . Your Jesus was crucified on Easter lol . My MESSIAH Yeshua was crucified on Passover again not even in the same month most years . Now your Jesus said the law is done away with . But Yeshua said the opposite . Your Jesus can eat anything he want . Yeshua would never agree to that . Your Vatican Jesus changed his own Sabbath to Sunday lol . These are just a few things that PROVE CHRISTIANITY IS NOTHING BIT ANOTHER CULT OR BASTERDS SON OF THE POPE . BABYLONIAN SUN GOD WORSHIPERS IS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE AND YOU THINK YOUR DOING IT FOR YAHWEH . HOW DARE YOU BE MAD WHEN HE TELLS YOU HE NEVER KNEW U

I am very skeptical about this argument. Origen (184-253 CE) was already acknowledging that Josephus' work may have been tampered with by his time much less this text a 1000 years later. For a reasonable discussion of Josephus and Jesus, see here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

how do you know? the 10th century is better than just a few years????? ridiculous. utterly ridiculous.

so jesus was a wise MAN.. nothing about resurrection and being god...believe what you will about santa in the sky....

@RexKochanski

3 ай бұрын

You seem to have ears but cannot or will not hear. There was plenty in the video about Jesus' followers claiming that he resurrected. Not believing the report is one thing, not HEARING the report suggests some SERIOUS prejudice. Get help.