@TaylorX04 Well you are mistaken. There is NO evidence that Justin Martyr had any knowledge of Josephus or ever read Josephus and that is the same with all early Christian writers except Origen. I know longer find the TF a complete forgery due to recent discussions with Louis Feldman, PhD (whom you mentioned), Gary Goldberg, PhD of wwwdotjosephusdotorg and Alice Whealey, PhD. ALL of these experts' work shows the TF WAS written by Josephus but later a Christian scribe tampered with it.
@TaylorX04 I had the please to speak with Dr. Whealey on the phone, which I found on the internet, and she wasn't really thrilled that someone found her phone number but yet spoke with me about her 2003 book "Josephus on Jesus" and she confirmed that her long and careful research on the matter proves that Josephus did write it but someone glossed it just a bit later. Louis Feldman agrees with Dr. Whealey. Dr. Goldberg holds that Josephus used the same source material that Luke used.
@boblackey1 Thanks for letting me know this. I've always kind of been in between about the TF personally, but the thing you're ignoring is that, even if authentic, the TF can still be argued as a commentary on the Christian sect rather than an historical testimony regarding a man named Jesus the Christ. So thanks for the additional research, but it really doesn't show I'm mistaken on anything. :-)
Also, I do now believe in a historical figure named Jesus, but not due to Josephus.
@TaylorX04 Well in addition to very early non Biblical Christian writings, Josephus and Tacitus can be seen as very early confrimation that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. But the website wwwdotjosephusdotorg makes a pretty good argument that Josephus actually used a source which is now lost for his info on Jesus and that Luke (or the unknown author of Luke/Acts) used the same source for a small part of Luke. Also I've seen a good argument that Tacitus used Josephus as his source.
@boblackey1 When I stated you are mistaken, it was the point that Justin Martyr never used the TF and the same with other early Christian writers but Whealey told me there is NO evidence that Justin Martyr had access to Josephus, ever read him or even knew of him. Origen did but Dr. Whealey pointed out that during Origen's time PAGAN Rome had control of Josephus' writings and not Christian Rome so it would be almost impossible for Origen to have read a copy of Josephus with xtain interpolations
@boblackey1 Unfortunately by "early" you mean 60+ years after the alleged death of Jesus, assuming it was no earlier than 30 CE. Tacitus also incorrectly titles Pilate a procurator when he was a prefect - something which Tacitus should have known unless he was using non-governmental sources (i.e. hearsay). It's hardly worth arguing that Luke and Josephus shared a source when we don't know the credibility of that source. It boils down to speculation really.
@TaylorX04 Well Dr. Goldberg @ wwwdotjosephusdotorg proves scientifically (so he says) that Josephus and Luke used the same source. He looks at the TF and the Luke narrative that is very similar and applies the math to it and it supposedly proves his case. Tacitus probably just used the title that was most familiar to his readers. A couple of scholars hold Tacitus used the TF for a source and Josephus doesn't use perfect or procurator so it is said Tacitus just guessed wrong.
@TaylorX04 But the TF doesn't call Christianity "an evil superstition" but they find enough similar that the suggest Tacitus used Josephus but just reworded it a little. Also I've encountered several scholars who hold that Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny etc using the name Christ in no way indicates that believed Jesus was the Christ. They only used it as a "nick name" With the James the brother of Jesus called Christ, every scholar I've checked accepts the passage as genuine.
@TaylorX04 the accept it as genuine for several reasons. Origen mentions it three times. It is usually Josephus custom to give additional titles to people due to being so many people named Jesus, James, John etc. And all ancient Christian writings always called James "the brother of the Lord". Indeed Dr. Mack argues that even Paul who wasn't fond of James still used "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians where Paul claims he met James and Peter in Jerusalem in a passing statement.
@boblackey1 In the James passage the scholars I've found say Josephus mentions two men named Jesus. The first is the brother of James called Christ. And Josephus identifies the second Jesus as the son of Damacus. They say that is usually Josephus' custom to do that. Amateur skeptics such as Frank Zindler, Ken Humphreys, Earl Doherty insist "called Christ" is an interpolation. Hell Zindler finds the John the Baptist passages also interpolations in his zeal to reject a historical Jesus
@boblackey1 I became interested in this debate when someone about 10 years ago gave me The Jesus Puzzle by Doherty and I learned that Earl held the position that Jesus never existed even as a man and is a complete myth. That was new to me and I noticed Earl didn't have a degree in the field. So I began to collect books and articles by those who are skeptical/agnostic but have a PhD or Masters in the field and could find just one, Bob Price, and his is serious doubt not rejection.
@boblackey1 Then I began to wonder about the TF. At first it seemed clear that the Jesus myth supporters had this one correct. Josephus, a Jew, couldn't have written the TF as it reads like a Christian confessional. But after getting in touch with Drs. Whealey, Feldman, Goldberg etc, the most penetrating work on Josephus indicates that originally it read "was believed to be the Christ" and used a greek word that denotes "doubt". Some Christian scribe tweaked it after pagan Rome fell
@TaylorX04 I find it interesting now that some scholars have made mention of it, that in Galatians (most scholars date it at 49/50 CE) Paul says he went to Jerusalem (that is where the head of the original Jesus movement is thought to have been located) & he met no others but Peter and James, the Lord's brother. But did they not tell Paul about the virgin birth? Or did Paul not think it worth mentioning? Or was this before the doctrine was developed as Paul never mentions it anywhere.
One thing worth pointing out is that 40 years after the events in the first century was effectively a lifetime. Most people back then only lived 40 - 50 years, so any eye-witnesses would have been children. The writers could put anything down without fear of contradiction.
One would think that Josephus would have mentioned Paul/Saul of Tarsus considering that according to the Christians' book of Acts, he caused dissension amongst the Jews all the way from Asia minor to jerusalem itself and even caused a riot at the Temple by not looking after his Gentile companion, Trophimaeus, when he entered that part of the Temple prohibited to non-Jews.
If having very few written references to Christ outside the bible within the first 50 yrs of his crucifixion qualifies Christ as a myth than having absolutely no written references eluding to Christ as a myth until 1840 (Bruno Bauer) over 1800 yrs after the crucifixion, by its own reasoning, would render the Christ myth a NO possibility. Internet sensationalist and many modern Jesus Mythologist fail miserably to bring anything new to the table.
@alvaboyfilms Are you kidding me? You're gonna post this same shit on every video in the series? To anyone interested, see my evisceration of this nonsense in the comments on the first video.
@TaylorX04 Grrrrrr Rawwww.. Put your claws away please. Your scaring the children..lol, My intention wasn't to spam your vids just to offer a counter argument. If you were able to get your all in one clip then I would have only posted it once Friends? :-)
@alvaboyfilms, your argument is analogous to claiming any of the other (obviously mythological) stories in the bible are valid simply because of the timing of their challenge. Do you believe Jonah spent time in the belly of a fish and then survived simply because there is little or no record of the story being contested? Do you believe in Noah's Ark for the same reason? Your source if replete with fantastical stories that may or may not have been challenged. The Jesus character is no different.
@judoyodan All I'm saying is that if the strength of one's argument to the Christ-myth leans heavily on the "few written references to Christ outside the bible" claim, then that same logic would have to apply to such an argument. And being that we have even less references eluding to Christ as a myth and with a much greater time gap, by its own reasoning, would render the Christ myth less probable then probable.
@alvaboyfilms, you are conjuring an argument for the existence of the Christ character that does not support his existence. Your "if - then" premise is false and a non sequitur.
It is obvious you are biased. You are not coming from an objective position. If you were, you would try to support a Jesus existence with evidence. You may be reasonable in other areas of your psyche, but here you are not. Religion does that to people. It destroys intellect and inquiry. Christianity is the worst.
@judoyodan I'm not saying my piont is a end to all arguments but it certainly causes the specific argument in question to play by its own rules. There are plenty of arguments for the existence of the historical Jesus. Even the very well known biblical skeptic & New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman doesn't doubt the existence of a historical Jesus. BTW I do offer evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus @ my page in the upload section named -> Jesus Myth Shattered (CASE CLOSED)
@alvaboyfilms, in no way are you casting aspersions on the argument against an historical Jesus. As religion has apparently destroyed your objectivity, it is doubtful I or anyone else will ever get you to succumb to reason. That is the norm with those inflicted with delusional schizophrenia. When looked at in a clinical sense, that is what religion is. Usually with secondary manifestations.
Regardless, in the case Jesus, lack of evidence is evidence of lack. Sorry.
OUR FAITH IS BASSED ON FAITH NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS,WE DO NOT NEED Josephus TO TELL US YASHUA LIVED, DIED THEN ROSE AGIEN.YES WE KNOW FOR A FACT HE LIVED,DIED AND ROSE AGIEN NOT BECOUSE SOME MEN SAID SO THAT DID NOT BELIVE, BUT BECOUSE OF THE ONES WHO DID BELIVE WE BELIVE.
@mystic81006 So you don't know for a fact then. You have faith that the New Testament authors were honest in their writings. You also have faith that they were intending to write history, not theology or polemics against certain groups. The scriptures are very unreliable documents to put your faith in though, as they can't even seem to get the date of Jesus' birth right (Matthew 2:1 - prior to 4 BC, Luke 2:2 - around 6 or 7 AD).
@TaylorX04 I DONT NEED TO HAVE FAITH THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS WHERE HONEST,BACK THEN MEN WHERE HONEST,THEY TOLD THE STORY OF HOW THEY SAW IT,PLAIN AND SIMPLE.THE BROTHER OF YASHUA WOULD NOT LIE ABOUT HIS OWN BROTHER,YOU MAKE ME LAPUGH.YOU ARE BEING LED BY DEMONS MY FRIEND,OR YOU ARE A DEMON WITH LIES.EITHER WAY,YOU WILL BE JUDGED JUST LIKE EVERY ONE ELSE IN THE END.AND I SIR, WELL,I WILL BE THERE TO WATCHING,LAPHING AT THE VERY LITTLE FAITH YOU HAVE.WAKE UP BEFORE ITS TO LATE.
@mystic81006 Men were honest back then? Now you're making me laugh! You don't believe the Romans were honest men, do you? The Greeks? The Pharisees? If those men were not honest, which I'd agree many of them weren't, then what basis do you have for thinking the men who wrote the gospels were? You absolutely DO have faith that the New Testament writers were honest, and it's ALL you have. Call me a demon and tell me I'll be judged all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you have nothing.
@TaylorX04 so you are to say yashuas brother was not honest? duuuuu, lol.it does change many facts,if you are led by demons you are a WHAT?????????? A LIER.
@mystic81006 Did you meet his brother and personally ask him? I'm willing to bet you didn't. All you have to go on is your FAITH that 2,000 year old documents were written by honest men, and you are so devoted to this dogma that you're willing to dismiss the facts of history and archaeology in order to uphold it. How sad.
@TaylorX04 AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THERE IS NO DATES IN THE BIBBLE SO WHERE DID YOU GET THIS PRIOR TO 4 BC? THIS AROUND 6 OR 7 AD? SEE WHERE YOUR FAULT IS? DO YOU NOT SEE YOUR LIE? DO YOU NOT SEE WHERE YOU MAKE UP THEASE FAULSE DATES WITH NO PROFF AT ALL NO WHERE THAT THE SAID DATES WHERE THE DATES THE SCRIPTURES WHERE WRITEN?
@mystic81006 Lol, you must reject everything except the bible. 4 BC is the date of Herod's death, so if Jesus was born during Herod's reign, like Matthew 2:1 says, then he would've been born sometime at or before 4 BC. 6 or 7 AD is the date of Quirinius' census of Syria, which is when Luke 2:2 says Jesus was born. These dates are supported by history and archaeology, far more reliable than your gospels.
@mystic81006 Luke 2:6 says Jesus was born during or after the census of Quirinius. The bible may not give a date, but there is NO evidence in the archaeological or historical record that the census was any time other than 6 or 7 AD, especially not around 4 BC! You are blind to the facts, not I, because you apparently reject anything outside of the bible, which is indoctrination and blind faith at its finest.
@TaylorX04 WHERE DOES IT SAY ANYWHERE OUT SIDE THE BIBBLE THAT THE CENSUS WAS ANYTIME OTHER THEN 6 OR 7 BC, SEE YOUR NOT SEEING YOUR SELF HERE, IT SAYS WHAT???? 6 OR 7, THEY DONT EVEN NOW IF ITS 6 OR 7, IF YOU NOT SHURE IF ITS 6 OR 7 THEN YOU DONT KNOW AT ALL.CASE CLOSED.
@mystic81006 You are unbelievably stupid, lol. History is not an exact science. Sometimes we can pinpoint an event to within one year, sometimes the best we can do is two years or more. If you're unaware of why the census could have only taken place between 6 and 7 AD, read a fucking history book on the subject, I'm not going to do all your work for you, because you're ignoring the facts anyway. You are arguing against ALL scholars of history, archaeology, and a great many biblical ones too.
@TaylorX04 YOU COME TO ME WITH IMAGINARY DATES THAT MEN MADE UP THAT HAVE NO TRUE TRUTH TO THEM.YOU COME TO ME TO SAY Herod's reign WAS IN 4BC WITH NOTHING TO PROVE THIS WITH,SO MY POINT IS YOU MAE FACTS BASED ON LIES WITH NO PROFF.
@mystic81006 "Imaginary dates"? Wow, you are severely brainwashed. Herod the Great's sons divided up his kingdom after his death, and each marked the beginning of their own reign as 4 BC. Josephus says that Herod died after a lunar eclipse and before Passover, and astronomy has revealed there was a lunar eclipse on March 13th, 4 BC, about 29 days before Passover. Like I said, history and archaeology testify to these dates. You are arguing against well established facts using your own ignorance.
ITS FUNNY REALLY, ITS FUNNY HOW THERE ARE THREE DIFRENT TESAMENTS OF YASHUA. ITS FUNNY HOW PEOPLE WILL BELIVE NON BELIVERS TO BELIVERS. NON BELIVERS ARE PEOPLE LIKE Josephus,IF HE WAS A NON BELIVER THEN JESUS DID REALLY EXSIST? IF Josephus WROTE ABOUT HIM THIS ALSO PROVES HE DID LIVE? NO, YASHUA LIVED BECOUSE WE HAVE THE SCRIPTURES WRITEN BY PEOPLE WHO WAS THERE,PERIOD.THE ADGE OF THE SCRIPTURES ARE ALSO A LIE,THEY SAY THEASE BOOKS WHERE WRITEN YEARS AFTER THE EVENT,THERE IS NO PROOF TO THIS.
@mystic81006 Actually, the lie is coming from people like you, who still dogmatically believe the scriptures are eyewitness accounts written during the time of Jesus. There is LOTS of proof to the gospels being late documents, such as the fact that no manuscript dates before 125 AD, the ex post eventu prediction of the fall of the Temple in Mark, and the absence of any commentaries or quotations of the gospels until about the 2nd or 3rd century AD. On the contrary, your position lacks the proof.
@TaylorX04 THERE IS NO LIE FROM ME,LOL, THERE IS NOT ONE SHREED OF REAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SCIRIPTURES OF WHEN THEY WHERE WRITEN.YOU SHOW THE PROFF? WHAT PROFF? WHERE? DID ALL OF THE WHOLE WORLD MISS SOMETHING?
@mystic81006 I just gave you the proof and you're willfully ignoring it, so I think you did miss something. You didn't even try to dispute what I said!
From my understanding. The first passage by Josephus is used by some scholars. In his book. Jesus interpreted. Ehrman uses the first passage though He leaves out the bit the bit about Jesus divintiy. The parts that you highlighted in yellow are not considered authentic. The rest is though.
It is scientifically PROVEN that Jesus walked the earth! stop rewriting history. All your doing is picking and choosing what history you want to believe. All scholars agree that Jesus existed and that Josephus mentioned him.
@SonnyDelight55 Scientifically proven? I don't think you know what that means, lol. You can't scientifically prove historical events, even if Jesus were real. There's no rewriting history here, just your unwillingness to question it. All scholars do not agree that Jesus existed or that Josephus mentioned him, and I prove this especially in my last video of this series. You mean to say that the majority do, but you are nonetheless making an appeal to authority fallacy.
@TaylorX04 I agree, the fact that all scholars believe something does not make it true. What matters is why they believe it. But I notice that atheists also do the same thing when it comes to the authorship of the gospels.
@SonnyDelight55 Go ahead and watch the rest of this series, then comment. I cover the reasons why scholars think Jesus existed, and none of them are convincing. In fact, a lot of the methods they use raise big objections.
@TaylorX04 I already did. You didn't give any reasons. If scholars were to deny that Jesus was a historical person they would have to deny the existence of almost any historical figure.
@SonnyDelight55 I already corrected you on your statement about Alexander the Great, and if you don't think I gave any reasons, then you're simply ignoring uncomfortable challenges to your faith. Regardless, I have to get back to work.
@TaylorX04 Think about what you trying to say. If jesus never existed, that means that somebody had to somehow convince james that he had a brother who never existed. It also means that the diciples all just hallucinated someone that they were traveling around with for three years.
@SonnyDelight55 Think about what you're saying too. The gospels are anonymous. The disciples may not have existed either. James may not have been Jesus' brother (Robert Eisenman and other scholars already believe this). The earliest origins of Christianity are not as concrete as you are assuming. The only writings we've got that don't raise loads of suspicion are from someone named Paul, who even admits he never met Jesus in person during his (Jesus') lifetime. What I'm saying is not incredible.
@TaylorX04 The gospels are not anonymous and even if they were that still wouldn't make them unreliable. The existence of his diciples is verified by Paul who knew the diciples and also by polycarp, clement of rome, and ignatius, who all know the apostles. Just because Paul never met Jesus during the time that he lived doesn't mean that he didn't know about him. And James being the brother of jesus is proven by Josephus, and the passage is authentic and if think it isn't, you need to give proof.
@SonnyDelight55 Hahaha, wow. The gospels are attributed authorship on the basis of tradition and speculation over internal details like "the disciple whom Jesus loved". None of them flat out state their author, but even if they did, we don't have corroboration of this by anyone living in their time. Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius were all born after the death of Jesus and the stories we have of them come from much later writers.
(cont'd) The Josephan passage on James is a joke of a mess that I explain in this video. If you don't like the arguments I present, refute them. Otherwise, you're just wanting to object out of indignation.
@TaylorX04 "the gospels are attributed by tradition" So is plutarch and tacitus, and yet nobody doubts their authorship, if fact we have better attribution for the gospels than plutarch and tacitus. When I mentioned polycarp and clement I was talking about the existence of the diciples. papias, polycarp, clement, ignatius, and paul all knew the diciples and documented their beliefs. Besides, I already explained to you that it doesn't need to be contemporary to be reliable.
@SonnyDelight55 No, Plutarch and Tacitus attached their names to their writings, and there are other independent sources to corroborate what they wrote AND would have been likely to write. It's not like a gospel full of literary themes is attributed to an illiterate fisherman in the case of Tacitus.
My mistake on Polycarp, Clement, etc. But what makes you say they knew the disciples? Most of their writings are preserved by infamous ol' Eusebius, who even questions some of their stories.
@TaylorX04 Papias' writings are preserved by Eusebius, but that doesn't make them unreliable. As for Clement, polycarp, and ignatius, we have their actual writings. And we know that they knew the diciples because they wrote about them. Papias, polyarp, and ignatius were all diciples of the diciple john (or were at least associated with him).
@SonnyDelight55 Eusebius questioned Papias' recounting of miracle stories, and Eusebius was a known forger. Polycarp's only surviving work is a letter to the Philippians, which doesn't mention any individual disciple. Other sources like excerpts by Eusebius and Tertullian are not considered historical. There is lots of room for debate on which John was known by Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias too. Clement was born way too late to have known the disciples.
@SonnyDelight55 I thought you were talking about Clement of Alexandria, jackass. Clement of Rome only has one surviving authentic work, which only mentions minor details on the ministry of Peter and Paul in a manner already featured in other texts by 80 AD. How do you know he got his sources from the men themselves? He doesn't say he did.
@SonnyDelight55 Tacitus and Plutarch's names were not attached to their writings. The only way we know who wrote them is by tradition. The earliest attestation for Tacitus is 100 years after he wrote them by tertullian. With plutarch its even worse. No mss of the gospels attribute authorship to anybody but mathew, mark, luke and, john. If you believe that the names were added later, then you need to provide some textual evidence. And the diciples were not illiterate fishermen.
@SonnyDelight55 Like I said about Alexander, the identity and historicity of Tacitus and Plutarch are not that consequential. All three were mortal men. Jesus is said to be the son of God, God incarnate, and so on. What pseudepigraphical works do you know of that are not religious or mythic in nature? Basically, what reason would someone have had to misattribute a history to Tacitus/Plutarch?
No mss of the gospels attribute authorship at all until the 2nd century and later! There's evidence.
@TaylorX04 "What pseudepigraphical works?" Easy. There were many works that were attributed to plutarch that were not really written by him. There is also the capitoline fasti of rome, wich is a forged list of consuls.
"no mss attribute authorship until the 2nd century" uh...yeah, thats because the earliest papyri we have is from the 2nd century, and they all attribute authorship to the diciples. You need to give me the name of one.
@SonnyDelight55 Fair enough on the pseudepigrapha. There is still obviously a much greater chance for a religious text to be falsely attributed though, especially in Judeo-Christian tradition.
I don't need to give you anything, because you're making an irresponsible claim. The earliest papyri are fragments, not whole mss, and the fact that no record of the gospels having their traditional attribution exists prior to the 2nd century is suspicious.
(cont'd) Next thing I know, you'll be telling me the angel of Nephi really did write the golden plates Joseph Smith found, because they weren't attributed to anyone else!
@TaylorX04 Clement mentions the martyrdom of peter and paul. What texts are you talking about? Clement lived in rome, and peter and paul set up a church in rome, since clement died a really old man its kind of common sense that he would have known them.
@SonnyDelight55 I'm talking about 1 Clement. It gives no details about their deaths, only fuzzy sentiments about how they departed from life and inherited their "place of glory" or "reward of faith". Is that characteristic for someone who knew them?
4:20 ~ One thing that always stands out to me about the second quote is that the subject of the clause is James but Jesus is mentioned first. Standard practice was to say something like, "James, the brother of Jesus." Indeed the bible and Josephus' works follow that practice. Would it be more likely for Josephus to deviate from the norm in this one passage and name the identifier Jesus before the subject James or for a christian text-tamperer to want to honor Jesus by naming him first?
Well see if this posts right. I found a better web site for the original greek texts. The site I was using before changed the order of the greek words around in order to make it easier to read. Apparently the Galations verse says "James the brother the lord" Now does that mean The brother of the lord, or The brother in the lord? Anyway see the private message I sent you.
@NotWhollySane "Now does that mean The brother of the lord, or The brother in the lord?"
Yes, that would pretty much be the controversy that's open to speculation, lol. For reasons I already stated about the other Mary and her children, as well as Jesus' designation of John as a son to his mother, I think it's more than reasonable to conclude that it's "brother in the lord", and that the Jesus character had no blood relatives (in the earliest stories).
I've been looking around and asking for help. Apparently TOU is the genitive case of the greek word for "the". The Genitive case is the possesive case. So tov adelphon tou kupiou would mean "the brother of the lord". Also the brother in the lord doesn't seem to make much grammatical sense. As far as the gospels go let's just agree that they are useless ficitons.
Oh nevermind. In order for Gal 1:19 to show that Paul thought Jesus was a real person and not a myth you would have to assume that a spiritual being cannot have a brother. And Heracles would seem to stomp all over that assumption.
@NotWhollySane Excellent point. It is kind of an inconsequential detail to the historicity of a person, whether or not they allegedly had a brother. I can understand how Galatians 1:19 might be persuasive to some, but Paul was notably not in the business of recording history and I don't consider him a very reliable source to begin with.
@TaylorX04 Thanks! I went onto a discussion board for help translating the paul text. We determined that the text did say "James the brother of the lord" but one of the moderators pointed out that Jesus could have a brother even if he was thought to be a spirit by Paul. I immediatly thought of Heracles being half brother to all sorts of greek gods.
@NotWhollySane Well, even with the phrase being that, I still think it's debatable what exactly was meant by "brother of the lord". Heracles actually had a mortal twin brother too, named Iphicles. I appreciate this conversation we've carried on, btw, because it's raised some issues that I plan to include in an "addendum" portion of the next video.
It should be interesting to see what you include. It's been nice talking about these things. I can't wait for the next video, and I'm really interested to see what you have to say about Tacitus' reference to Jesus.
Regarding the James reference, first, if you take out, "brother of christ" we find a tale about James who was in a conflict with Annanus over the high priesthood. Once again, the word christ would not have been used by Josephus. Further, Origen relates that if the passage were true, then the calamties that befell the jews should have been related to Jesus but are, instead, related by Josephus as having been related to James
Further still, the Catholics don't believe James to have been the brother of Jesus at all. Still further there is Hegeisppus who relates the death of James, brother of Jesus, in a wholly different tale with a wholly different ending.
The James refernce is another fraud. Again, remove "brother of Christ" , which Josphus would never have used, and the tale makes much more sense.
@NotWhollySane I see where you're coming from, but as you previously pointed out, silence from an author does not mean they're unfamiliar with Josephus. ;-)
@TaylorX04 True, but one of the key premises of your argument is that they *were* familair with Josephus. At first, I accepted that premise, without question, but after doing a little fact checking and research, I cannot know whether it is true or not.
So I cannot verify the soundness of your argument since one of it's premises is not shown to be true or false.
@NotWhollySane Origen was indisputably familiar with Josephus, but Tertullian did cite from Josephus too, as did Clement and Theophilus. You could argue that they all had incomplete copies of Antiquities or that they saw no reason to quote the Testimonium, but I do not find this convincing, for reasons already stated. Maybe some day we'll find a copy of the Testimonium that predates Eusebius, but until then, the fact that it appears with a known forger is a big red flag.
@NotWhollySane Yeah, there's an article by Roger Pearse on tertullian[dot]org titled "Josephus in the Ante-Nicene Fathers" that gives a list of 14 references.
True but RP disagrees that Tertullian would have had any reason to include the testamonium in any of the works which contain citations of Josephus. What about the other church fathers?
@NotWhollySane I disagree with RP on that. The Ante-Nicene fathers were well known polemicists against heresies, and one heresy discussed by Justin Martyr in his "Dialogue with Trypho" is that Jesus never existed and was a figment of Christian imaginations. So there was reason to cite passages like the Testimonium as evidence for Jesus' historicity in those days. Of course, it's still debatable who knew of it, but as I've already shown, several church fathers quoted Josephus and knew his works.
@NotWhollySane For the first question, I'd point out that we've only recently started applying historical criticism to ancient persons and myths, beginning in the 18th century. There is reasonable suspicion that Socrates and Confucius may not have existed, but we don't hear their detractors pointing it out either, because we just didn't examine written accounts back then in the same way as we do today.
That would excuse the enemies who lived too long after Jesus in order to know better, but what about the people who lived around the same times as Jesus? One would think that they would have called christians out on Jesus' nonexistance.
@NotWhollySane How many enemies do you think the fledgling Christian sect had? I think Paul had enemies, because he taught against the Hebrew law and was a ruthless people pleaser that some saw through. Other than that, we really can't estimate how big the early Christian sect was or how many enemies it had. But consider the revolt of Bar Kokhba against the Romans. It was a direct challenge to Roman authority that seemed to slip under the radar long enough for a serious threat to develop.
(cont'd) So I think it's possible and even likely that the early Christian sect did not garner much attention until it really started to dominate Judea and challenge Roman life.
(cont'd) As for the second, I find this an odd question. Do you think there were historical persons behind the gods of ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, or Scandinavia? All it takes for a religion to develop is a story. I think it's possible that Paul concocted Jesus from a vision he had. He did find others willing to believe in the same Jesus, but as he says, he received his gospel from no man.
Ah I should have stated that clearer. It seems extremely unlikey that a religion that worships someone it thinks is a historical figure to have made up said figure. Twenty years seems a rather short time to go from made up guy to actually existed guy who was crucified by the romans.
@NotWhollySane I don't think it's necessarily 20 years. The groundwork for a crucified messiah was already laid in some peoples' thinking. Paul says his gospel was one hidden from the ages but revealed in the prophets. He and the other New Testament authors connect their stories to Old Testament verses often, even when they are not clearly prophetic. They took this framework of a suffering savior and slapped it onto a "person". The teachings given to him are often found in Hebrew scripture too.
(cont'd) I think that's why the gospels and epistles all present such a mess of details surrounding Jesus. Some of them took elements from the OT, others made things up on their own, maybe others relayed hearsay. They attached a loose idea to a character, and beyond that idea, what do we know? Do we know what Jesus looked like? Do we know the location of his tomb? On the other hand we have stories of his birth and dialogue with Pilate, which the authors could not have been around to report.
I disagree that Paul made up christianity. Look at Galations Ch 1 18-24
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.
@NotWhollySane I think Paul's whole pre-Christian persona is disputable, as well as his connection to the apostles. Paul allegedly got into a spat with Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 over how Gentiles should worship. After attending a council in Acts 15 where it is decided that believers should practice abstinence from food sacrificed to idols, eating blood, and other similar matters, Paul ignores this and goes on to teach total freedom of diet (Romans 14:14, 1 Corin. 10:25-27).
(cont'd) The point is that Paul, as mentioned already, was a loner; he did not receive his gospel from any man, but from nothing short of divine revelation. Apparently this gave Paul reason to think he had a more direct line to God, challenging the other followers. When he says that his writing is no lie, I have to take that with a grain of salt.
1. I'll have to contest the reference to James in Galatians 1:19. The Greek word used there for brother is "adelphon", which is elsewhere used by Paul to refer to his brothers in Christ (1 Corin. 8:13, 2 Corin. 2:13, Philippians 2:25, 1 Thessalonians 3:2), who are not literally his blood relatives. Perhaps this verse has been mistranslated and only really means, "brother in Christ", as Paul frequently used in other passages.
(cont'd) I don't want to get into a long debate, but I think James was a rival to Paul. Robert Eisenman and other scholars have proposed this too, that the early Christians were divided into factions loyal to Paul and some loyal to James. Maybe then it wasn't Paul who invented Christianity, but this James individual, aligned with the "Church of God" that Paul may have originally persecuted.
So you're claiming that he means brother in the metaphorical sense. The problem with that is the way we determine what words are a metaphor. Consider the phrase "Into each life a little rain must fall, but too much has fallen in mine." That sentence makes no literal sense. Rain cannot fall *into* a life. Rain is clearly a metaphor for unlucky or sad events.
There are also other suddle clues that signal a metaphor other than no literal meaning of a word. These clues are abound in the verses that you pointed out and missing in the Galations verse of mine. In fact there is a suddle clue that Paul meant literal brother. He says "I swear to God this is no lie!" That phrase indicates that Paul had the amazing experience of meeting Jesus' actual blood relative.
@NotWhollySane I don't think that phrase indicates that at all. In verse 18, he says he went to visit Peter, so it has nothing to do with the fact that James was Jesus' actual blood relative, but just that Paul met the other (original) apostles. He goes on to mention traveling to Syria and Cilicia, and that he was unknown to the churches of Judea. Nothing in the verse supports that he was swearing the truth on the blood relation of James to Jesus. You'd have to look at the original Greek too.
I've looked at the original greek and it says pretty much "I swear to God". I don't see what would be so amazing to anyone about meeting another apostle. Also when Paul calls people a brother in the lord in all the other verses he simply says Adelphon. He only says Kuriou Adelphon (Lord/'s Brother) in the Gal verse. Wouldn't brother in the lord be Adelphon Kuriou?
@NotWhollySane Actually, it is "adelphon kuriou" in Galatians 1:19. Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 refer to a Mary who was the mother of James and Joses (Joseph), while John 19:25 distinguishes this other Mary from Jesus' mother. This woman has the same name as Jesus' mother, and two sons bearing the same names as alleged brothers of Jesus, and yet this is not Jesus' mother. Throughout the NT, Mary is called the mother of Jesus alone, and Jesus' "brothers" are never named as her sons.
(cont'd) Another strong point in Jesus having no blood relatives is how he recommends John to care for his mother, as he hangs on the cross. What would be the reason for designating John as her son if Jesus' mother already had other sons to look after her?
Another great vid, thanks for your analysis. While it didn't detract from the presentation your voice sound like it was getting strain towards the end, to me anyway.
Oops. Posted that on accident. Anyway I thought your video was really good even though I disagree with you. The passage concerning James obviously talks about some other Jesus, and the Talmud's passage is a mess.
Your argument that someone should have reported Josephus' passage before the time of Eusebius is a good one, but it is not gaurunteed that the early church writers would have definatly reported it. At best it's a strong inductive argument but I'll need more than that to change my mind.
Here's a better reconstruction of Josephus' passage. The apologist's is lame.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonders. He drew many after him. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Also there is a tenth century Arabic document that has Josephus' text in it. It is void of the christian additions, and thus probably traces it's path of origin all the way back to Josephus himself.
@NotWhollySane The tenth century text is preserved in the work of a Christian Arab and bishop, so I'm not sure I agree that it's void of Christian influence. It also still has Josephus saying Jesus was "perhaps the messiah", which is an unlikely concession from someone who was an orthodox Jew and praised Vespasian as the messiah.
@NotWhollySane Well nothing is ever guaranteed when revisiting history, is it? Sure, it's possible that the early Christians knew of the Testimonium but never reported it, but I still think that's unlikely, given that Origen cited the James passage and the John passage, and - what, had no reason to cite the Jesus one? The ancient table of contents has no listing for it, Eusebius first cites the passage, and he was a known forger, etc, etc.
@NotWhollySane Where did you learn this from? Even if the table of contents was initially composed by a Jew, that does not mean they would have had no reason to mark the passage on Jesus, especially in the growth of Christianity around the 2nd century. Later Christians who read Josephus might also have interpolated a note about the Testimonium, as one did for the John passage in the table of contents to a 5th century copy of Antiquities.
Simple. I read the table of contents. A christian would have made a table of contents with John the Babtist and James the brother of Jesus passages highlighted. That table contains no such thing. It was probably made by a roman or a jew, who couldn't care less about Jesus or John.
@FHomeBrew Yeah, but I sometimes have to think about all the time I wasted learning theology, when it could've been spent on something more useful, like persecuting Christians... lol.
I think I am missing a vital piece of information. The time frame of the story (c. 62 AD) suggests that either 1- Jesus was in his 60's at the time of assuming the priesthood 2- this was a different Jesus (as suggested by the name of his father (Damneus ie. not god or Joseph) or 3- this was originally a different James and Jesus as Joseph was purportedly from the tribe of Judah not Levi and so James would have had some difficulty assuming the priesthood at all let alone the High Priesthood
@WaysOfMan I'd say option #2 is the most likely, based on the textual evidence. Another odd thing about the passage is how it does not elaborate on who Jesus "called the Christ" is. It kind of relies on the Testimonium for readers to be familiar with Jesus, and when Josephus refers to the same individual twice, he always states so in the latter reference, saying something like "as mentioned in a previous book". Here, this is not the case though.
(cont'd) I think that when James is mentioned, it connects him to Jesus, because Josephus is trying to elaborate on which James he's talking about. Then later on he elaborates on which Jesus he is talking about as the brother of James: the Jesus whose father was Damneus.
@mspookie The Jewish OT never says anything about Jesus. The Talmud does say "Yeshu" was stoned to death, but as I argue in this video, Yeshu is probably not Jesus.
I've checked out a few Christian websites that discuss Jesus in the Talmud, and I'm shocked at how anti-semetic some of them are. They'll cite the passage you showed in your vid and others as "proof" the Jews hate Jesus, including one that says (I'm not making this up) that Jesus is in hell boiling in hot semen. I'd anticipate they'd respond that differences between the Jesus of the Talmud and the Gospels are just Jewish attempts at disguising their insults.
@GuineaPigDan You'd be completely correct about that pal. I've seen this claim before (that the differences between Yeshu and Jesus are there to throw Christians off the "scent" so to speak)
Very good and fairly thorough...I would only add that the quote often attributed to Josephus saying Jesus "WAS the christ" has been thoroughly debunked as being "Jesus WAS BELIEVED to be the Christ." The obviously implications of such an edit pretty much negates almost anything else that can be argued. This edit came later as we have found earlier copies that lacked the edit. It's a blatant forgery of the work for political purposes.
@KingHeathen Are you saying that it was originally "believed to be the Christ" or that it was edited to read that after the fact, in order to seem more authentic? I think the latter is more plausible, because I have not seen any evidence that the passage originally had "believed to be". Some apologists argued that it probably said that and reconstructed it in such a way, but I've seen no reason to think it's anything more than wishful speculation.
@TaylorX04 Yes, that is the original quote, although there are so many variations on what it could mean. "Believed to be" was not Josephus' personal view, as he never 'converted'. I've read compelling scholarship re: Josephus and Vespasian. Josephus may have indeed laid the messianic fulfillment on Vespasian, which makes things pretty confusing.
@rationalmuscle It wouldn't be all too surprising if Josehpus in fact laid messianic fulfillment on Vespasian, as he really wrote in order to placate the Romans. That's pretty much all he did.... ever.
@thisguyheisaguy Indeed, I would say that was the 'only' reason he did. He supposedly "prophesied" that Vespasian would rise to power (this is hardly a stretch; much like Jesus' prophesy of the temple being destroyed, written conveniently shortly before or even 'after' the fact) so we know he was buddy-buddy with the guy. And since he was employed by the Romans... well, go figure. I'm just glad it wasn't 300 years later, as he'd be quoted as a believer in Jesus and the new Church of Rome. ; )
I've been waiting for someone to do it. I am surprised that you didn't mention Eucebius' quoted chapter that would earn him the posthumous moniker The Liar.
"How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived."
Where in he invokes Plato to support his forgeries, and teach the practice to scribes under him.
Damn you just killed Jesus... Again!
latinxl416 1 month ago
what did you read to get all this material??? Price??? :)
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 month ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA I do like Price a lot, but this was all my research, with few exceptions.
TaylorX04 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 really great job man.. I'm working to get to that level eventually..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 Well you are mistaken. There is NO evidence that Justin Martyr had any knowledge of Josephus or ever read Josephus and that is the same with all early Christian writers except Origen. I know longer find the TF a complete forgery due to recent discussions with Louis Feldman, PhD (whom you mentioned), Gary Goldberg, PhD of wwwdotjosephusdotorg and Alice Whealey, PhD. ALL of these experts' work shows the TF WAS written by Josephus but later a Christian scribe tampered with it.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 I had the please to speak with Dr. Whealey on the phone, which I found on the internet, and she wasn't really thrilled that someone found her phone number but yet spoke with me about her 2003 book "Josephus on Jesus" and she confirmed that her long and careful research on the matter proves that Josephus did write it but someone glossed it just a bit later. Louis Feldman agrees with Dr. Whealey. Dr. Goldberg holds that Josephus used the same source material that Luke used.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 Thanks for letting me know this. I've always kind of been in between about the TF personally, but the thing you're ignoring is that, even if authentic, the TF can still be argued as a commentary on the Christian sect rather than an historical testimony regarding a man named Jesus the Christ. So thanks for the additional research, but it really doesn't show I'm mistaken on anything. :-)
Also, I do now believe in a historical figure named Jesus, but not due to Josephus.
TaylorX04 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 Well in addition to very early non Biblical Christian writings, Josephus and Tacitus can be seen as very early confrimation that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. But the website wwwdotjosephusdotorg makes a pretty good argument that Josephus actually used a source which is now lost for his info on Jesus and that Luke (or the unknown author of Luke/Acts) used the same source for a small part of Luke. Also I've seen a good argument that Tacitus used Josephus as his source.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 When I stated you are mistaken, it was the point that Justin Martyr never used the TF and the same with other early Christian writers but Whealey told me there is NO evidence that Justin Martyr had access to Josephus, ever read him or even knew of him. Origen did but Dr. Whealey pointed out that during Origen's time PAGAN Rome had control of Josephus' writings and not Christian Rome so it would be almost impossible for Origen to have read a copy of Josephus with xtain interpolations
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 Unfortunately by "early" you mean 60+ years after the alleged death of Jesus, assuming it was no earlier than 30 CE. Tacitus also incorrectly titles Pilate a procurator when he was a prefect - something which Tacitus should have known unless he was using non-governmental sources (i.e. hearsay). It's hardly worth arguing that Luke and Josephus shared a source when we don't know the credibility of that source. It boils down to speculation really.
TaylorX04 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 Well Dr. Goldberg @ wwwdotjosephusdotorg proves scientifically (so he says) that Josephus and Luke used the same source. He looks at the TF and the Luke narrative that is very similar and applies the math to it and it supposedly proves his case. Tacitus probably just used the title that was most familiar to his readers. A couple of scholars hold Tacitus used the TF for a source and Josephus doesn't use perfect or procurator so it is said Tacitus just guessed wrong.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 But the TF doesn't call Christianity "an evil superstition" but they find enough similar that the suggest Tacitus used Josephus but just reworded it a little. Also I've encountered several scholars who hold that Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny etc using the name Christ in no way indicates that believed Jesus was the Christ. They only used it as a "nick name" With the James the brother of Jesus called Christ, every scholar I've checked accepts the passage as genuine.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 the accept it as genuine for several reasons. Origen mentions it three times. It is usually Josephus custom to give additional titles to people due to being so many people named Jesus, James, John etc. And all ancient Christian writings always called James "the brother of the Lord". Indeed Dr. Mack argues that even Paul who wasn't fond of James still used "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians where Paul claims he met James and Peter in Jerusalem in a passing statement.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 In the James passage the scholars I've found say Josephus mentions two men named Jesus. The first is the brother of James called Christ. And Josephus identifies the second Jesus as the son of Damacus. They say that is usually Josephus' custom to do that. Amateur skeptics such as Frank Zindler, Ken Humphreys, Earl Doherty insist "called Christ" is an interpolation. Hell Zindler finds the John the Baptist passages also interpolations in his zeal to reject a historical Jesus
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 I became interested in this debate when someone about 10 years ago gave me The Jesus Puzzle by Doherty and I learned that Earl held the position that Jesus never existed even as a man and is a complete myth. That was new to me and I noticed Earl didn't have a degree in the field. So I began to collect books and articles by those who are skeptical/agnostic but have a PhD or Masters in the field and could find just one, Bob Price, and his is serious doubt not rejection.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 Then I began to wonder about the TF. At first it seemed clear that the Jesus myth supporters had this one correct. Josephus, a Jew, couldn't have written the TF as it reads like a Christian confessional. But after getting in touch with Drs. Whealey, Feldman, Goldberg etc, the most penetrating work on Josephus indicates that originally it read "was believed to be the Christ" and used a greek word that denotes "doubt". Some Christian scribe tweaked it after pagan Rome fell
boblackey1 1 month ago
@TaylorX04 I find it interesting now that some scholars have made mention of it, that in Galatians (most scholars date it at 49/50 CE) Paul says he went to Jerusalem (that is where the head of the original Jesus movement is thought to have been located) & he met no others but Peter and James, the Lord's brother. But did they not tell Paul about the virgin birth? Or did Paul not think it worth mentioning? Or was this before the doctrine was developed as Paul never mentions it anywhere.
boblackey1 1 month ago
One thing worth pointing out is that 40 years after the events in the first century was effectively a lifetime. Most people back then only lived 40 - 50 years, so any eye-witnesses would have been children. The writers could put anything down without fear of contradiction.
ralph17p 6 months ago
One would think that Josephus would have mentioned Paul/Saul of Tarsus considering that according to the Christians' book of Acts, he caused dissension amongst the Jews all the way from Asia minor to jerusalem itself and even caused a riot at the Temple by not looking after his Gentile companion, Trophimaeus, when he entered that part of the Temple prohibited to non-Jews.
EdM021 6 months ago
What came first ,Adam and Eve or the belly button.....lol!
desertflinger11 7 months ago
If having very few written references to Christ outside the bible within the first 50 yrs of his crucifixion qualifies Christ as a myth than having absolutely no written references eluding to Christ as a myth until 1840 (Bruno Bauer) over 1800 yrs after the crucifixion, by its own reasoning, would render the Christ myth a NO possibility. Internet sensationalist and many modern Jesus Mythologist fail miserably to bring anything new to the table.
alvaboyfilms 9 months ago
@alvaboyfilms Are you kidding me? You're gonna post this same shit on every video in the series? To anyone interested, see my evisceration of this nonsense in the comments on the first video.
TaylorX04 9 months ago 7
@TaylorX04 Grrrrrr Rawwww.. Put your claws away please. Your scaring the children..lol, My intention wasn't to spam your vids just to offer a counter argument. If you were able to get your all in one clip then I would have only posted it once Friends? :-)
alvaboyfilms 9 months ago
@alvaboyfilms, your "argument" is fallacious in that it is clearly a non sequitur.
judoyodan 6 months ago
@judoyodan Care to elucidate?
alvaboyfilms 6 months ago
@alvaboyfilms, your argument is analogous to claiming any of the other (obviously mythological) stories in the bible are valid simply because of the timing of their challenge. Do you believe Jonah spent time in the belly of a fish and then survived simply because there is little or no record of the story being contested? Do you believe in Noah's Ark for the same reason? Your source if replete with fantastical stories that may or may not have been challenged. The Jesus character is no different.
judoyodan 6 months ago
@judoyodan All I'm saying is that if the strength of one's argument to the Christ-myth leans heavily on the "few written references to Christ outside the bible" claim, then that same logic would have to apply to such an argument. And being that we have even less references eluding to Christ as a myth and with a much greater time gap, by its own reasoning, would render the Christ myth less probable then probable.
alvaboyfilms 6 months ago
@alvaboyfilms, you are conjuring an argument for the existence of the Christ character that does not support his existence. Your "if - then" premise is false and a non sequitur.
It is obvious you are biased. You are not coming from an objective position. If you were, you would try to support a Jesus existence with evidence. You may be reasonable in other areas of your psyche, but here you are not. Religion does that to people. It destroys intellect and inquiry. Christianity is the worst.
judoyodan 6 months ago
@judoyodan I'm not saying my piont is a end to all arguments but it certainly causes the specific argument in question to play by its own rules. There are plenty of arguments for the existence of the historical Jesus. Even the very well known biblical skeptic & New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman doesn't doubt the existence of a historical Jesus. BTW I do offer evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus @ my page in the upload section named -> Jesus Myth Shattered (CASE CLOSED)
alvaboyfilms 6 months ago
@alvaboyfilms, in no way are you casting aspersions on the argument against an historical Jesus. As religion has apparently destroyed your objectivity, it is doubtful I or anyone else will ever get you to succumb to reason. That is the norm with those inflicted with delusional schizophrenia. When looked at in a clinical sense, that is what religion is. Usually with secondary manifestations.
Regardless, in the case Jesus, lack of evidence is evidence of lack. Sorry.
judoyodan 6 months ago
@judoyodan LOL Ya think you can fit a "argumentum ad hominem" or two in there amigo?? ROFL too funny. What do you say we just agree to disagree :-)
alvaboyfilms 6 months ago
OUR FAITH IS BASSED ON FAITH NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS,WE DO NOT NEED Josephus TO TELL US YASHUA LIVED, DIED THEN ROSE AGIEN.YES WE KNOW FOR A FACT HE LIVED,DIED AND ROSE AGIEN NOT BECOUSE SOME MEN SAID SO THAT DID NOT BELIVE, BUT BECOUSE OF THE ONES WHO DID BELIVE WE BELIVE.
mystic81006 1 year ago
@mystic81006 So you don't know for a fact then. You have faith that the New Testament authors were honest in their writings. You also have faith that they were intending to write history, not theology or polemics against certain groups. The scriptures are very unreliable documents to put your faith in though, as they can't even seem to get the date of Jesus' birth right (Matthew 2:1 - prior to 4 BC, Luke 2:2 - around 6 or 7 AD).
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 I DONT NEED TO HAVE FAITH THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS WHERE HONEST,BACK THEN MEN WHERE HONEST,THEY TOLD THE STORY OF HOW THEY SAW IT,PLAIN AND SIMPLE.THE BROTHER OF YASHUA WOULD NOT LIE ABOUT HIS OWN BROTHER,YOU MAKE ME LAPUGH.YOU ARE BEING LED BY DEMONS MY FRIEND,OR YOU ARE A DEMON WITH LIES.EITHER WAY,YOU WILL BE JUDGED JUST LIKE EVERY ONE ELSE IN THE END.AND I SIR, WELL,I WILL BE THERE TO WATCHING,LAPHING AT THE VERY LITTLE FAITH YOU HAVE.WAKE UP BEFORE ITS TO LATE.
mystic81006 1 year ago
@mystic81006 Men were honest back then? Now you're making me laugh! You don't believe the Romans were honest men, do you? The Greeks? The Pharisees? If those men were not honest, which I'd agree many of them weren't, then what basis do you have for thinking the men who wrote the gospels were? You absolutely DO have faith that the New Testament writers were honest, and it's ALL you have. Call me a demon and tell me I'll be judged all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you have nothing.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 so you are to say yashuas brother was not honest? duuuuu, lol.it does change many facts,if you are led by demons you are a WHAT?????????? A LIER.
mystic81006 1 year ago
@mystic81006 Did you meet his brother and personally ask him? I'm willing to bet you didn't. All you have to go on is your FAITH that 2,000 year old documents were written by honest men, and you are so devoted to this dogma that you're willing to dismiss the facts of history and archaeology in order to uphold it. How sad.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 yes, i have faith, much much faith, this is all i need is my faith, nothing else, but you are coming to me with lies.
mystic81006 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THERE IS NO DATES IN THE BIBBLE SO WHERE DID YOU GET THIS PRIOR TO 4 BC? THIS AROUND 6 OR 7 AD? SEE WHERE YOUR FAULT IS? DO YOU NOT SEE YOUR LIE? DO YOU NOT SEE WHERE YOU MAKE UP THEASE FAULSE DATES WITH NO PROFF AT ALL NO WHERE THAT THE SAID DATES WHERE THE DATES THE SCRIPTURES WHERE WRITEN?
mystic81006 1 year ago
@mystic81006 Lol, you must reject everything except the bible. 4 BC is the date of Herod's death, so if Jesus was born during Herod's reign, like Matthew 2:1 says, then he would've been born sometime at or before 4 BC. 6 or 7 AD is the date of Quirinius' census of Syria, which is when Luke 2:2 says Jesus was born. These dates are supported by history and archaeology, far more reliable than your gospels.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 Luke 2:2 DOES NOT SAY WHEN JESUS WAS BORN,BY THE WAY HIS NAME IS YASHUA. THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS YOU LIER,WOW,I JUST COUGHT YOU IN A LIE.
And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,SEE, NO DATES,NONE,NOTHING ABOUT ANY DATE,SEE,YOU ARE BLIND TO THE FACTS HERE.
mystic81006 1 year ago
@mystic81006 Luke 2:6 says Jesus was born during or after the census of Quirinius. The bible may not give a date, but there is NO evidence in the archaeological or historical record that the census was any time other than 6 or 7 AD, especially not around 4 BC! You are blind to the facts, not I, because you apparently reject anything outside of the bible, which is indoctrination and blind faith at its finest.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 WHERE DOES IT SAY ANYWHERE OUT SIDE THE BIBBLE THAT THE CENSUS WAS ANYTIME OTHER THEN 6 OR 7 BC, SEE YOUR NOT SEEING YOUR SELF HERE, IT SAYS WHAT???? 6 OR 7, THEY DONT EVEN NOW IF ITS 6 OR 7, IF YOU NOT SHURE IF ITS 6 OR 7 THEN YOU DONT KNOW AT ALL.CASE CLOSED.
mystic81006 1 year ago
@mystic81006 You are unbelievably stupid, lol. History is not an exact science. Sometimes we can pinpoint an event to within one year, sometimes the best we can do is two years or more. If you're unaware of why the census could have only taken place between 6 and 7 AD, read a fucking history book on the subject, I'm not going to do all your work for you, because you're ignoring the facts anyway. You are arguing against ALL scholars of history, archaeology, and a great many biblical ones too.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 YOU COME TO ME WITH IMAGINARY DATES THAT MEN MADE UP THAT HAVE NO TRUE TRUTH TO THEM.YOU COME TO ME TO SAY Herod's reign WAS IN 4BC WITH NOTHING TO PROVE THIS WITH,SO MY POINT IS YOU MAE FACTS BASED ON LIES WITH NO PROFF.
mystic81006 1 year ago
@mystic81006 "Imaginary dates"? Wow, you are severely brainwashed. Herod the Great's sons divided up his kingdom after his death, and each marked the beginning of their own reign as 4 BC. Josephus says that Herod died after a lunar eclipse and before Passover, and astronomy has revealed there was a lunar eclipse on March 13th, 4 BC, about 29 days before Passover. Like I said, history and archaeology testify to these dates. You are arguing against well established facts using your own ignorance.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
ITS FUNNY REALLY, ITS FUNNY HOW THERE ARE THREE DIFRENT TESAMENTS OF YASHUA. ITS FUNNY HOW PEOPLE WILL BELIVE NON BELIVERS TO BELIVERS. NON BELIVERS ARE PEOPLE LIKE Josephus,IF HE WAS A NON BELIVER THEN JESUS DID REALLY EXSIST? IF Josephus WROTE ABOUT HIM THIS ALSO PROVES HE DID LIVE? NO, YASHUA LIVED BECOUSE WE HAVE THE SCRIPTURES WRITEN BY PEOPLE WHO WAS THERE,PERIOD.THE ADGE OF THE SCRIPTURES ARE ALSO A LIE,THEY SAY THEASE BOOKS WHERE WRITEN YEARS AFTER THE EVENT,THERE IS NO PROOF TO THIS.
mystic81006 1 year ago
@mystic81006 Actually, the lie is coming from people like you, who still dogmatically believe the scriptures are eyewitness accounts written during the time of Jesus. There is LOTS of proof to the gospels being late documents, such as the fact that no manuscript dates before 125 AD, the ex post eventu prediction of the fall of the Temple in Mark, and the absence of any commentaries or quotations of the gospels until about the 2nd or 3rd century AD. On the contrary, your position lacks the proof.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 THERE IS NO LIE FROM ME,LOL, THERE IS NOT ONE SHREED OF REAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SCIRIPTURES OF WHEN THEY WHERE WRITEN.YOU SHOW THE PROFF? WHAT PROFF? WHERE? DID ALL OF THE WHOLE WORLD MISS SOMETHING?
mystic81006 1 year ago
@mystic81006 I just gave you the proof and you're willfully ignoring it, so I think you did miss something. You didn't even try to dispute what I said!
TaylorX04 1 year ago
From my understanding. The first passage by Josephus is used by some scholars. In his book. Jesus interpreted. Ehrman uses the first passage though He leaves out the bit the bit about Jesus divintiy. The parts that you highlighted in yellow are not considered authentic. The rest is though.
Foxcanine1 1 year ago
It is scientifically PROVEN that Jesus walked the earth! stop rewriting history. All your doing is picking and choosing what history you want to believe. All scholars agree that Jesus existed and that Josephus mentioned him.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Scientifically proven? I don't think you know what that means, lol. You can't scientifically prove historical events, even if Jesus were real. There's no rewriting history here, just your unwillingness to question it. All scholars do not agree that Jesus existed or that Josephus mentioned him, and I prove this especially in my last video of this series. You mean to say that the majority do, but you are nonetheless making an appeal to authority fallacy.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 I agree, the fact that all scholars believe something does not make it true. What matters is why they believe it. But I notice that atheists also do the same thing when it comes to the authorship of the gospels.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Go ahead and watch the rest of this series, then comment. I cover the reasons why scholars think Jesus existed, and none of them are convincing. In fact, a lot of the methods they use raise big objections.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 I already did. You didn't give any reasons. If scholars were to deny that Jesus was a historical person they would have to deny the existence of almost any historical figure.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 I already corrected you on your statement about Alexander the Great, and if you don't think I gave any reasons, then you're simply ignoring uncomfortable challenges to your faith. Regardless, I have to get back to work.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 Think about what you trying to say. If jesus never existed, that means that somebody had to somehow convince james that he had a brother who never existed. It also means that the diciples all just hallucinated someone that they were traveling around with for three years.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Think about what you're saying too. The gospels are anonymous. The disciples may not have existed either. James may not have been Jesus' brother (Robert Eisenman and other scholars already believe this). The earliest origins of Christianity are not as concrete as you are assuming. The only writings we've got that don't raise loads of suspicion are from someone named Paul, who even admits he never met Jesus in person during his (Jesus') lifetime. What I'm saying is not incredible.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 The gospels are not anonymous and even if they were that still wouldn't make them unreliable. The existence of his diciples is verified by Paul who knew the diciples and also by polycarp, clement of rome, and ignatius, who all know the apostles. Just because Paul never met Jesus during the time that he lived doesn't mean that he didn't know about him. And James being the brother of jesus is proven by Josephus, and the passage is authentic and if think it isn't, you need to give proof.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Hahaha, wow. The gospels are attributed authorship on the basis of tradition and speculation over internal details like "the disciple whom Jesus loved". None of them flat out state their author, but even if they did, we don't have corroboration of this by anyone living in their time. Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius were all born after the death of Jesus and the stories we have of them come from much later writers.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
(cont'd) The Josephan passage on James is a joke of a mess that I explain in this video. If you don't like the arguments I present, refute them. Otherwise, you're just wanting to object out of indignation.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 "the gospels are attributed by tradition" So is plutarch and tacitus, and yet nobody doubts their authorship, if fact we have better attribution for the gospels than plutarch and tacitus. When I mentioned polycarp and clement I was talking about the existence of the diciples. papias, polycarp, clement, ignatius, and paul all knew the diciples and documented their beliefs. Besides, I already explained to you that it doesn't need to be contemporary to be reliable.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 No, Plutarch and Tacitus attached their names to their writings, and there are other independent sources to corroborate what they wrote AND would have been likely to write. It's not like a gospel full of literary themes is attributed to an illiterate fisherman in the case of Tacitus.
My mistake on Polycarp, Clement, etc. But what makes you say they knew the disciples? Most of their writings are preserved by infamous ol' Eusebius, who even questions some of their stories.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 Papias' writings are preserved by Eusebius, but that doesn't make them unreliable. As for Clement, polycarp, and ignatius, we have their actual writings. And we know that they knew the diciples because they wrote about them. Papias, polyarp, and ignatius were all diciples of the diciple john (or were at least associated with him).
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Eusebius questioned Papias' recounting of miracle stories, and Eusebius was a known forger. Polycarp's only surviving work is a letter to the Philippians, which doesn't mention any individual disciple. Other sources like excerpts by Eusebius and Tertullian are not considered historical. There is lots of room for debate on which John was known by Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias too. Clement was born way too late to have known the disciples.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 Clement of Rome died in 96 a.d. That was just a stupid statement.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 I thought you were talking about Clement of Alexandria, jackass. Clement of Rome only has one surviving authentic work, which only mentions minor details on the ministry of Peter and Paul in a manner already featured in other texts by 80 AD. How do you know he got his sources from the men themselves? He doesn't say he did.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 lol. your joking right? we have tones of writings from ignatius.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Where did I suggest otherwise? You're just looking for reasons to disagree with me and write me off, aren't you?
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Tacitus and Plutarch's names were not attached to their writings. The only way we know who wrote them is by tradition. The earliest attestation for Tacitus is 100 years after he wrote them by tertullian. With plutarch its even worse. No mss of the gospels attribute authorship to anybody but mathew, mark, luke and, john. If you believe that the names were added later, then you need to provide some textual evidence. And the diciples were not illiterate fishermen.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Like I said about Alexander, the identity and historicity of Tacitus and Plutarch are not that consequential. All three were mortal men. Jesus is said to be the son of God, God incarnate, and so on. What pseudepigraphical works do you know of that are not religious or mythic in nature? Basically, what reason would someone have had to misattribute a history to Tacitus/Plutarch?
No mss of the gospels attribute authorship at all until the 2nd century and later! There's evidence.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 "What pseudepigraphical works?" Easy. There were many works that were attributed to plutarch that were not really written by him. There is also the capitoline fasti of rome, wich is a forged list of consuls.
"no mss attribute authorship until the 2nd century" uh...yeah, thats because the earliest papyri we have is from the 2nd century, and they all attribute authorship to the diciples. You need to give me the name of one.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 Fair enough on the pseudepigrapha. There is still obviously a much greater chance for a religious text to be falsely attributed though, especially in Judeo-Christian tradition.
I don't need to give you anything, because you're making an irresponsible claim. The earliest papyri are fragments, not whole mss, and the fact that no record of the gospels having their traditional attribution exists prior to the 2nd century is suspicious.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
(cont'd) Next thing I know, you'll be telling me the angel of Nephi really did write the golden plates Joseph Smith found, because they weren't attributed to anyone else!
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 Clement mentions the martyrdom of peter and paul. What texts are you talking about? Clement lived in rome, and peter and paul set up a church in rome, since clement died a really old man its kind of common sense that he would have known them.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@SonnyDelight55 I'm talking about 1 Clement. It gives no details about their deaths, only fuzzy sentiments about how they departed from life and inherited their "place of glory" or "reward of faith". Is that characteristic for someone who knew them?
TaylorX04 1 year ago
If I remember correctly. Origen spoke that hell was finite and was excommunicated 3 centuries after he died. Great job.
MercuryRis 1 year ago
4:20 ~ One thing that always stands out to me about the second quote is that the subject of the clause is James but Jesus is mentioned first. Standard practice was to say something like, "James, the brother of Jesus." Indeed the bible and Josephus' works follow that practice. Would it be more likely for Josephus to deviate from the norm in this one passage and name the identifier Jesus before the subject James or for a christian text-tamperer to want to honor Jesus by naming him first?
dtrylz 1 year ago
Well see if this posts right. I found a better web site for the original greek texts. The site I was using before changed the order of the greek words around in order to make it easier to read. Apparently the Galations verse says "James the brother the lord" Now does that mean The brother of the lord, or The brother in the lord? Anyway see the private message I sent you.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane "Now does that mean The brother of the lord, or The brother in the lord?"
Yes, that would pretty much be the controversy that's open to speculation, lol. For reasons I already stated about the other Mary and her children, as well as Jesus' designation of John as a son to his mother, I think it's more than reasonable to conclude that it's "brother in the lord", and that the Jesus character had no blood relatives (in the earliest stories).
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
I've been looking around and asking for help. Apparently TOU is the genitive case of the greek word for "the". The Genitive case is the possesive case. So tov adelphon tou kupiou would mean "the brother of the lord". Also the brother in the lord doesn't seem to make much grammatical sense. As far as the gospels go let's just agree that they are useless ficitons.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
Oh nevermind. In order for Gal 1:19 to show that Paul thought Jesus was a real person and not a myth you would have to assume that a spiritual being cannot have a brother. And Heracles would seem to stomp all over that assumption.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane Excellent point. It is kind of an inconsequential detail to the historicity of a person, whether or not they allegedly had a brother. I can understand how Galatians 1:19 might be persuasive to some, but Paul was notably not in the business of recording history and I don't consider him a very reliable source to begin with.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 Thanks! I went onto a discussion board for help translating the paul text. We determined that the text did say "James the brother of the lord" but one of the moderators pointed out that Jesus could have a brother even if he was thought to be a spirit by Paul. I immediatly thought of Heracles being half brother to all sorts of greek gods.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane Well, even with the phrase being that, I still think it's debatable what exactly was meant by "brother of the lord". Heracles actually had a mortal twin brother too, named Iphicles. I appreciate this conversation we've carried on, btw, because it's raised some issues that I plan to include in an "addendum" portion of the next video.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
It should be interesting to see what you include. It's been nice talking about these things. I can't wait for the next video, and I'm really interested to see what you have to say about Tacitus' reference to Jesus.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane
Regarding the James reference, first, if you take out, "brother of christ" we find a tale about James who was in a conflict with Annanus over the high priesthood. Once again, the word christ would not have been used by Josephus. Further, Origen relates that if the passage were true, then the calamties that befell the jews should have been related to Jesus but are, instead, related by Josephus as having been related to James
Godshoulddie 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane
Further still, the Catholics don't believe James to have been the brother of Jesus at all. Still further there is Hegeisppus who relates the death of James, brother of Jesus, in a wholly different tale with a wholly different ending.
The James refernce is another fraud. Again, remove "brother of Christ" , which Josphus would never have used, and the tale makes much more sense.
Godshoulddie 1 year ago
@Godshoulddie
I know a catholic who is a recently re-converted athiest. I'll ask him about James the brother of Jesus.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane
Just check out the Catholic Encyclopedia reference to James.
Godshoulddie 1 year ago
Hmm; more thoughts.
The only apologist that I can find having knowledge of Josephus is Origen, and it's always possible that he had an incomplete version of Josephus.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane I see where you're coming from, but as you previously pointed out, silence from an author does not mean they're unfamiliar with Josephus. ;-)
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 True, but one of the key premises of your argument is that they *were* familair with Josephus. At first, I accepted that premise, without question, but after doing a little fact checking and research, I cannot know whether it is true or not.
So I cannot verify the soundness of your argument since one of it's premises is not shown to be true or false.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane Origen was indisputably familiar with Josephus, but Tertullian did cite from Josephus too, as did Clement and Theophilus. You could argue that they all had incomplete copies of Antiquities or that they saw no reason to quote the Testimonium, but I do not find this convincing, for reasons already stated. Maybe some day we'll find a copy of the Testimonium that predates Eusebius, but until then, the fact that it appears with a known forger is a big red flag.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
Could you point out these citations of the church fathers?
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane Yeah, there's an article by Roger Pearse on tertullian[dot]org titled "Josephus in the Ante-Nicene Fathers" that gives a list of 14 references.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
True but RP disagrees that Tertullian would have had any reason to include the testamonium in any of the works which contain citations of Josephus. What about the other church fathers?
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane I disagree with RP on that. The Ante-Nicene fathers were well known polemicists against heresies, and one heresy discussed by Justin Martyr in his "Dialogue with Trypho" is that Jesus never existed and was a figment of Christian imaginations. So there was reason to cite passages like the Testimonium as evidence for Jesus' historicity in those days. Of course, it's still debatable who knew of it, but as I've already shown, several church fathers quoted Josephus and knew his works.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
I once had to read Dialogue with Trypho. I don't recall Justin discussing Jesus never existing. Exactly where is it in that looooong speal?
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
I have some more thoughts on your video.
If Jesus didn't exist, why didn't the enemies of christianity ,throughout history, point this out?
If Jesus didn't exist then just *how* did christianity begin? It seems extremely unlikely that a religion would start over a non-existant person.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane For the first question, I'd point out that we've only recently started applying historical criticism to ancient persons and myths, beginning in the 18th century. There is reasonable suspicion that Socrates and Confucius may not have existed, but we don't hear their detractors pointing it out either, because we just didn't examine written accounts back then in the same way as we do today.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
That would excuse the enemies who lived too long after Jesus in order to know better, but what about the people who lived around the same times as Jesus? One would think that they would have called christians out on Jesus' nonexistance.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane How many enemies do you think the fledgling Christian sect had? I think Paul had enemies, because he taught against the Hebrew law and was a ruthless people pleaser that some saw through. Other than that, we really can't estimate how big the early Christian sect was or how many enemies it had. But consider the revolt of Bar Kokhba against the Romans. It was a direct challenge to Roman authority that seemed to slip under the radar long enough for a serious threat to develop.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
(cont'd) So I think it's possible and even likely that the early Christian sect did not garner much attention until it really started to dominate Judea and challenge Roman life.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
And when was that?
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
(cont'd) As for the second, I find this an odd question. Do you think there were historical persons behind the gods of ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, or Scandinavia? All it takes for a religion to develop is a story. I think it's possible that Paul concocted Jesus from a vision he had. He did find others willing to believe in the same Jesus, but as he says, he received his gospel from no man.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
Ah I should have stated that clearer. It seems extremely unlikey that a religion that worships someone it thinks is a historical figure to have made up said figure. Twenty years seems a rather short time to go from made up guy to actually existed guy who was crucified by the romans.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane I don't think it's necessarily 20 years. The groundwork for a crucified messiah was already laid in some peoples' thinking. Paul says his gospel was one hidden from the ages but revealed in the prophets. He and the other New Testament authors connect their stories to Old Testament verses often, even when they are not clearly prophetic. They took this framework of a suffering savior and slapped it onto a "person". The teachings given to him are often found in Hebrew scripture too.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
(cont'd) I think that's why the gospels and epistles all present such a mess of details surrounding Jesus. Some of them took elements from the OT, others made things up on their own, maybe others relayed hearsay. They attached a loose idea to a character, and beyond that idea, what do we know? Do we know what Jesus looked like? Do we know the location of his tomb? On the other hand we have stories of his birth and dialogue with Pilate, which the authors could not have been around to report.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
That all sounds very nice, except for the Galations verse I showed you. Scroll down a bit. :)
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
I disagree that Paul made up christianity. Look at Galations Ch 1 18-24
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane I think Paul's whole pre-Christian persona is disputable, as well as his connection to the apostles. Paul allegedly got into a spat with Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 over how Gentiles should worship. After attending a council in Acts 15 where it is decided that believers should practice abstinence from food sacrificed to idols, eating blood, and other similar matters, Paul ignores this and goes on to teach total freedom of diet (Romans 14:14, 1 Corin. 10:25-27).
TaylorX04 1 year ago
(cont'd) The point is that Paul, as mentioned already, was a loner; he did not receive his gospel from any man, but from nothing short of divine revelation. Apparently this gave Paul reason to think he had a more direct line to God, challenging the other followers. When he says that his writing is no lie, I have to take that with a grain of salt.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
I think you missed my point.
I quoted those verses in order to show that Paul tells us two things.
1. He met up with Jesus' brother. (Which implies that Jesus was a real person).
2. Paul once persecuted christians (Which shows that he didn't invent the religion).
So of course Paul had disagreements with the other apostles but meeting up with apostles wasn't what I wanted to show you.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane
1. I'll have to contest the reference to James in Galatians 1:19. The Greek word used there for brother is "adelphon", which is elsewhere used by Paul to refer to his brothers in Christ (1 Corin. 8:13, 2 Corin. 2:13, Philippians 2:25, 1 Thessalonians 3:2), who are not literally his blood relatives. Perhaps this verse has been mistranslated and only really means, "brother in Christ", as Paul frequently used in other passages.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
(cont'd) I don't want to get into a long debate, but I think James was a rival to Paul. Robert Eisenman and other scholars have proposed this too, that the early Christians were divided into factions loyal to Paul and some loyal to James. Maybe then it wasn't Paul who invented Christianity, but this James individual, aligned with the "Church of God" that Paul may have originally persecuted.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
The James inventing it idea certianly works better than the Paul inventing it idea.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
So you're claiming that he means brother in the metaphorical sense. The problem with that is the way we determine what words are a metaphor. Consider the phrase "Into each life a little rain must fall, but too much has fallen in mine." That sentence makes no literal sense. Rain cannot fall *into* a life. Rain is clearly a metaphor for unlucky or sad events.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane
There are also other suddle clues that signal a metaphor other than no literal meaning of a word. These clues are abound in the verses that you pointed out and missing in the Galations verse of mine. In fact there is a suddle clue that Paul meant literal brother. He says "I swear to God this is no lie!" That phrase indicates that Paul had the amazing experience of meeting Jesus' actual blood relative.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane I don't think that phrase indicates that at all. In verse 18, he says he went to visit Peter, so it has nothing to do with the fact that James was Jesus' actual blood relative, but just that Paul met the other (original) apostles. He goes on to mention traveling to Syria and Cilicia, and that he was unknown to the churches of Judea. Nothing in the verse supports that he was swearing the truth on the blood relation of James to Jesus. You'd have to look at the original Greek too.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
I've looked at the original greek and it says pretty much "I swear to God". I don't see what would be so amazing to anyone about meeting another apostle. Also when Paul calls people a brother in the lord in all the other verses he simply says Adelphon. He only says Kuriou Adelphon (Lord/'s Brother) in the Gal verse. Wouldn't brother in the lord be Adelphon Kuriou?
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane Actually, it is "adelphon kuriou" in Galatians 1:19. Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 refer to a Mary who was the mother of James and Joses (Joseph), while John 19:25 distinguishes this other Mary from Jesus' mother. This woman has the same name as Jesus' mother, and two sons bearing the same names as alleged brothers of Jesus, and yet this is not Jesus' mother. Throughout the NT, Mary is called the mother of Jesus alone, and Jesus' "brothers" are never named as her sons.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
(cont'd) Another strong point in Jesus having no blood relatives is how he recommends John to care for his mother, as he hangs on the cross. What would be the reason for designating John as her son if Jesus' mother already had other sons to look after her?
TaylorX04 1 year ago
Found a better site. It says "the brother the lord"
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
Scroll up to see my reply to this. Comments are being wierd today.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
Another great vid, thanks for your analysis. While it didn't detract from the presentation your voice sound like it was getting strain towards the end, to me anyway.
westkan 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane
Oops. Posted that on accident. Anyway I thought your video was really good even though I disagree with you. The passage concerning James obviously talks about some other Jesus, and the Talmud's passage is a mess.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
Your argument that someone should have reported Josephus' passage before the time of Eusebius is a good one, but it is not gaurunteed that the early church writers would have definatly reported it. At best it's a strong inductive argument but I'll need more than that to change my mind.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
Here's a better reconstruction of Josephus' passage. The apologist's is lame.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonders. He drew many after him. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
Josephus may not have been around during the time of Jesus' death but he wasn't around during the time of many of the things that he reported.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane
Also there is a tenth century Arabic document that has Josephus' text in it. It is void of the christian additions, and thus probably traces it's path of origin all the way back to Josephus himself.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane The tenth century text is preserved in the work of a Christian Arab and bishop, so I'm not sure I agree that it's void of Christian influence. It also still has Josephus saying Jesus was "perhaps the messiah", which is an unlikely concession from someone who was an orthodox Jew and praised Vespasian as the messiah.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
Well crap. I assumed an arabic document would be under the care of an islamic guy.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane Well nothing is ever guaranteed when revisiting history, is it? Sure, it's possible that the early Christians knew of the Testimonium but never reported it, but I still think that's unlikely, given that Origen cited the James passage and the John passage, and - what, had no reason to cite the Jesus one? The ancient table of contents has no listing for it, Eusebius first cites the passage, and he was a known forger, etc, etc.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
The ancient table of contents wasn't written by a christian. So it would have no reason to list the Testamonium. I checked it out.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
@NotWhollySane Where did you learn this from? Even if the table of contents was initially composed by a Jew, that does not mean they would have had no reason to mark the passage on Jesus, especially in the growth of Christianity around the 2nd century. Later Christians who read Josephus might also have interpolated a note about the Testimonium, as one did for the John passage in the table of contents to a 5th century copy of Antiquities.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04
Simple. I read the table of contents. A christian would have made a table of contents with John the Babtist and James the brother of Jesus passages highlighted. That table contains no such thing. It was probably made by a roman or a jew, who couldn't care less about Jesus or John.
NotWhollySane 1 year ago
Damn you seem to know a lot! A lot more than most christians I know!
FHomeBrew 1 year ago
@FHomeBrew Thanks, lol. I guess that's the "curse" that comes from having been so obsessed with apologetics when I was a believer.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 It's actually sort of a gift. You can use this "curse" for good things now :D
FHomeBrew 1 year ago
@FHomeBrew Yeah, but I sometimes have to think about all the time I wasted learning theology, when it could've been spent on something more useful, like persecuting Christians... lol.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
Awesome job!!
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
I think I am missing a vital piece of information. The time frame of the story (c. 62 AD) suggests that either 1- Jesus was in his 60's at the time of assuming the priesthood 2- this was a different Jesus (as suggested by the name of his father (Damneus ie. not god or Joseph) or 3- this was originally a different James and Jesus as Joseph was purportedly from the tribe of Judah not Levi and so James would have had some difficulty assuming the priesthood at all let alone the High Priesthood
WaysOfMan 1 year ago
@WaysOfMan I'd say option #2 is the most likely, based on the textual evidence. Another odd thing about the passage is how it does not elaborate on who Jesus "called the Christ" is. It kind of relies on the Testimonium for readers to be familiar with Jesus, and when Josephus refers to the same individual twice, he always states so in the latter reference, saying something like "as mentioned in a previous book". Here, this is not the case though.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
(cont'd) I think that when James is mentioned, it connects him to Jesus, because Josephus is trying to elaborate on which James he's talking about. Then later on he elaborates on which Jesus he is talking about as the brother of James: the Jesus whose father was Damneus.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
Gret material. Big thanks for the effort.
macnutz 1 year ago
Also good.
LordNapalm 1 year ago
mmm... Jesus... it's what's for dinner... the other other white meat.
jimrbsn 1 year ago
Well done, Sir,
lupocephalic 1 year ago
I read where the word christ meant Smeared with grime .
no1saphead 1 year ago
Oooo.. suck it Christians part II. Love it!
kd1s 1 year ago
Excellent video, I look forward to the rest of the series.
shreddakj 1 year ago
Why does Josephus say that Jesus was crucified when the Jewish OT says he was stoned to death? Wasn't it you who told us this in part 1?
mspookie 1 year ago
@mspookie The Jewish OT never says anything about Jesus. The Talmud does say "Yeshu" was stoned to death, but as I argue in this video, Yeshu is probably not Jesus.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
Gil Student has an interesting website concerning the Jesus' found in the Talmud.
colonelkentucky81 1 year ago
I've checked out a few Christian websites that discuss Jesus in the Talmud, and I'm shocked at how anti-semetic some of them are. They'll cite the passage you showed in your vid and others as "proof" the Jews hate Jesus, including one that says (I'm not making this up) that Jesus is in hell boiling in hot semen. I'd anticipate they'd respond that differences between the Jesus of the Talmud and the Gospels are just Jewish attempts at disguising their insults.
GuineaPigDan 1 year ago
@GuineaPigDan You'd be completely correct about that pal. I've seen this claim before (that the differences between Yeshu and Jesus are there to throw Christians off the "scent" so to speak)
thisguyheisaguy 1 year ago
Very good and fairly thorough...I would only add that the quote often attributed to Josephus saying Jesus "WAS the christ" has been thoroughly debunked as being "Jesus WAS BELIEVED to be the Christ." The obviously implications of such an edit pretty much negates almost anything else that can be argued. This edit came later as we have found earlier copies that lacked the edit. It's a blatant forgery of the work for political purposes.
KingHeathen 1 year ago 8
@KingHeathen Are you saying that it was originally "believed to be the Christ" or that it was edited to read that after the fact, in order to seem more authentic? I think the latter is more plausible, because I have not seen any evidence that the passage originally had "believed to be". Some apologists argued that it probably said that and reconstructed it in such a way, but I've seen no reason to think it's anything more than wishful speculation.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 Yes, that is the original quote, although there are so many variations on what it could mean. "Believed to be" was not Josephus' personal view, as he never 'converted'. I've read compelling scholarship re: Josephus and Vespasian. Josephus may have indeed laid the messianic fulfillment on Vespasian, which makes things pretty confusing.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle It wouldn't be all too surprising if Josehpus in fact laid messianic fulfillment on Vespasian, as he really wrote in order to placate the Romans. That's pretty much all he did.... ever.
thisguyheisaguy 1 year ago
@thisguyheisaguy Indeed, I would say that was the 'only' reason he did. He supposedly "prophesied" that Vespasian would rise to power (this is hardly a stretch; much like Jesus' prophesy of the temple being destroyed, written conveniently shortly before or even 'after' the fact) so we know he was buddy-buddy with the guy. And since he was employed by the Romans... well, go figure. I'm just glad it wasn't 300 years later, as he'd be quoted as a believer in Jesus and the new Church of Rome. ; )
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 I'm saying "believed to be" predates "was"...meaning that no matter what..it clearly wasn't "was."
KingHeathen 1 year ago
Magnificent work! Thanks very much for sharing, and I look forward to the other parts.
uthamal 1 year ago
I've been waiting for someone to do it. I am surprised that you didn't mention Eucebius' quoted chapter that would earn him the posthumous moniker The Liar.
"How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived."
Where in he invokes Plato to support his forgeries, and teach the practice to scribes under him.
OhmySKoD 1 year ago
@OhmySKoD Great vid, thank you for taking the time to make your videos.
OhmySKoD 1 year ago
@OhmySKoD It actually crossed my mind, but I figured Eusebius is already well known for his disreputable antics. Ah well. Maybe in the next video.
TaylorX04 1 year ago