Josephus Really Mentions Jesus?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- Josephus Really Mentions Jesus? | Richard Carrier PhD
Join MythVision Patreon 👉 / mythvision
Check out Dr. Richard Carrier's website - www.richardcar...
==============================
*RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE*
Check out MVP Courses
www.mvp-course...
Sign up here for Dennis MacDonald's course "Reading The Gospels With One Eye on Greek Poetry - www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Richard Carrier's Course "New Testament Studies For Everyone."
www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course
www.mythvision...
Sign up for Bart's new Mark course "The Unknown Jesus"
mythvisionpodc...
Sign up for 👉 "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?"
www.mythvision...
Sign up here for Dr. M. David Litwa's course - The Ancient Greek Mysteries & Christianity - -
www.mythvision...
Sign up here for Dr. Dale C. Allison Jr's course - The Quest For The Historical Jesus - - www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - Finding Moses - -
www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course - Other Virgin Births In Antiquity - -
www.mythvision...
Sign up for the 7 hour resurrection debate between Dr's Bart Ehrman & Mike Licona here - - www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Genesis "In The Beginning" Webinar here - - www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Christmas Webinar here - - www.mythvision...
Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Did Jesus call himself God webinar - - www.mythvision...
============================
**GET RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
============================
Please consider helping support MythVision's work by joining the Patreon or contributing a one-time donation through my links below:
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodc...
MythVision Patreon: 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal: 👉 www.paypal.me/...
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Email MythVision: 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter: 👉 / derekpodcast
TikTok: 👉 / mythvision
Instagram: 👉 / dereklambert_7
Discord: 👉 / discord
===========================
👉👉 Checkout Our Other UA-cam Channel:
www.youtube.com/ @mythvisionclips
👉👉 Checkout MVP Courses to find new and upcoming online courses:
mvp-courses.com/
===========================
#Jesus #mythvision #MythVisionPodcast #mvp #dereklambert
Sign up for Dr. Richard Carrier's Course "New Testament Studies For Everyone."
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/nt-studies
If you’ve got the wine, Dr Carrier has the time 😂 Always glad to see him 👏👏👏 Also about to tackle On the Historicity
I heard Jesus liked the wine...
Why is it that a man who was born in Judea just a few years after the supposed events took place, raised and educated there, has so little to say about this Jesus dude... One would think there would have been plenty of people talking about the "miracles"... the dead coming out of their graves (zombies), the resurrection, you know, all of that stuff. Yet, were we to take what he supposedly wrote about Jesus as truth... he knows literally nothing. It just doesn't stand up to critical, or even casual, consideration.
Absolutely love this comment, I say this all the time to Christians when this subject comes up.
so it's either the guy did not exist but if he did it has to be the Jesus of fundamentalist evangelical, American Christianity? It's not possible that under the layers of myth there was a Yeshua bar Yousef?
This is right in line with my biggest question when it comes to this topic, which is jesus is the supposed savior of the world yet we have so little written about him during the time! We will literally have 100s of books about Donald trump but debatable few writings about Jesus
@@noname19816 right, there’s no critical level headed in between thinking with these people
@@noname19816 No. That is not the argument. That is a strawman you created. Non-fundamentalist Christians also accept the "miracles", but explain them as perfectly normal psychosomatic cures, or some such. Non-fundamentalists also accept the Jesus who supposedly attracted crowds of people - at a time when the authorities viewed any such crowds with suspicion, and would have taken note - and made speeches full of supposedly profound wisdom. This is the Jesus the non-fundamentalists want to keep.
But there's no trace of this Jesus, either.
Did Joshepus mention Brian too ? He should have, cos Brian was a very naughty boy 😂. Seriously tho, as a layperson, I reckon it was added in.
and a capricorn !
I'm reading through On the Historicity of Jesus. It's fascinating. I love hearing from Dr. Carrier
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own.
The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives.
Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 You write the same tendencious comment on many videos. Why?
@@charliebrady3751 Parable of the Sower who casts his seed about hoping a seed here and a seed there will root, grow, and bear fruit.
@@charliebrady3751 expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one:
@@termination9353 Ok, trolling. Understood.
Josephus would not have written _only_ 3 glad-handing sentences about the supposed God of The Universe. He was a details man.
Truth ^^
Well, the historicist idea is that there were MANY "messiah" claimers and thus Jesus was not "important" beyond a mention to Josephus... however, Josephus is quoted while he CALLS HIM messiah, not just claims others call him that. Super weird, especially since it was various lines of Christians that "copied and saved" his work and we have evidence Christians VERY OFTEN integrated "side notes" into the bodies of text. Josephus does mention about 12-17 "Joshuas/Jesus" but none of them describing anything even hinting at what the main Christian bibliolatries portray. One Jesus/Joshua is a General in the Jewish revolt of 70AD and is killed by a Roman catapult that hurled a large stone that hit him.
@@letsomethingshine Jesus was announced as king of Israel in that choice between Jesus and Barabbas. Quickly said, Pilot dressed Jesus up as King, Pilot presented Jesus to the Sanhedrin and high priest among the crowd as "their King". Told the crowd to choose to crucify "their King" or Barabbas. The Saducees and High Priest chose "their king" Jesus to be crucified and instigated the Jewish crowd to choose "their King" to be crucified..... and so the Priesthood anointed Jesus as their king in order for him to be executed. And Pilat published this fact above Jesus head at a time when Jerusalem was most crowded of Jews from all over the realm.
What this accomplished was to legalize according to Torah law Jesus' amended covenant and make irrelevant all burdensome Talmudic rules.
I think Jesus and Pilat planned it together. Neet trick on the Sanhedrin huh.
Personally I think he'd file suit on anyone he knew claimed he wrote that lame paragraph!
@@letsomethingshine The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own.
The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives.
Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
The problem with trying to know the truth about the Josephus passages that mention Jesus for somebody like myself is that everybody that writes about them has a particular perspective and agenda which makes it difficult for a non scholar to come to an objective conclusion on what the truth is of the Josephus passages that mention Jesus.
As of today, maybe because I just listened to Carrier on the Josephus Jesus passages, he seems the most credible. Also maybe because it fits with my overall conclusion about the history of the origin of very early Christianity which is that most details about it are profoundly unknowable. There is no archeology and there are no contemporaneous documents that provide evidence on the origin of Christianity. Nothing is knowable about a hypothetical Jesus including whether he existed.
Philo of Alexandria ( died 47-50 CE) was known to have been in Jerusalem when Jesus made his entry into the town. He was there when the crucifixion of Jesus was alleged to have taken place, and when the earthquake, the daytime darkness and when the tombs opened and the dead were supposed to have gone walkabout in downtown Jerusalem. Philo was still in Jerusalem after 3 days when the resurrection occurred and Jesus ascended into heaven. Now Philo's literary output was known to run to about 30 manuscripts, and at least 850,000 words by Philo are still extant.
It therefore defies all probability and credulity that, when all these supernatural events were alleged to be taking place at the exact time that Philo was in Jerusalem, he never witnessed anything out of the ordinary happening, and furthermore did not record in writing a single word about any of them. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that none of the events associated with Jesus's crucifxion and resurrection took place at that particular time , or if they did occur, they were not on the dates recorded in the Gospels.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own.
The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives.
Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 Simply copying and pasting your comment does not support your case.
Yes, I've made a similar point repeatedly about the lack of historical documentation regarding the eclipse, earthquake and zombies. How confident should we be in a text with such absurdities in it? After reading those 3 things why should we take it at all seriously regarding the crucifixion?
I've heard so many reputable scholars just state a bald assumption that Jesus existed, without ever providing solid evidence. So I routinely point out the unreliability of the crucifixion account and ask them why we should have any confidence whatsoever in it. But they never answer.
@@fepeerreview3150 answering questions to support my case supports my case... when I'm asked. The more I paste the better my chances of getting asked.
@@fepeerreview3150 How do 2 blind men follow Jesus? How does a deaf man hear Jesus? Why use seven brothers in a question when a two-brothers example would have made the same point? What did Jesus write in the dust with his finger? What was Mary Magdalene's "special part that would not be taken from her"? Why does it say that the "disciple whom Jesus' loved outran Peter? Why did the people rumor that the disciple whom Jesus loved could never die? What was the "word" the centurion's servants were trying to get Jesus to reveal to them that had healing powers? What did Jesus mean by use of the term 'cockcrowing'? What "sign" were the Pharisees looking for from Jesus if miracle healing did not count? When the Pharisees spoke of "less the second mistake be worse than the first" what 'mistake' are they talking about? What made Mary Magdalene out to be a sinner? When the angel asked, "Why seek ye the living from among the dead?", who were the "dead" the angel was referring to? Since book of Acts shows apostle John and Mark to be the same person, how then did we end up with two distinct gospels from the same author? How can two sisters both be named Mary? What is the meaning of the term 'quicken'? How can the narrative read that Jesus performed "many miracles" in-between the first and second miracle? Why is it noted a division of geneology by 14 generations? Why does Jesus make a healing mixture of spit and mud when Jesus had demonstrated he could heal by words alone?
Excellent analysis on the high likelihood that the TF was forged. Yet most scholars to this day maintain that Josephus wrote it, minus the obviously, over the top Christian bits. Well if you remove the Christian bits the whole thing unravels like an old knitted sweater when you pull on a thread. Which means if Josephus wrote any of this he wrote all of it. Now we have to get to the question of why, because
(1) the TF comes off as dripping with sarcasm,
(2) Josephus doesn't know anything about this guy, who his father was or where he came from,
(3) he's not sure if Jesus was actually crucified despite the line that Pilate summarily condemns him to the cross/pale/pole without trial but merely on a suggestion by the chief men of the Jews that he get rid of him, and
(4) He doesn't say Jesus resurrected but rather he showed up to his disciples the third day after he was first "alive again" the regular way, i.e. the third day after he revived.
And then the TF is followed up with a tale of seduction, trickery and deceit, and another tale of some Jewish scam artists ostensibly raising funds for the Temple but keeping it for themselves.
So now you have to ask yourself, why? Why? Why would Josephus write the TF followed by an anecdote that says virgin births do not exist and another that says beware of religious scam artists? The conclusion is nothing good, that it was part of a Flavian conspiracy to invent Christianity, or redirect or discredit it.
Which is why the Eusebian provenance hypothesis is so much more plausible than the Flavian one. Eusebius is just one guy who is a known liar and forger; no conspiracy theory is need to conclude he forged it, unlike with the Flavians and Josephus.
Not necessarily, the Christians might have just replaced Josephus referring to Eugnostos with the name Jesus... we have clear evidence it happened before to poor Eugnostos, too good and non-murderous/non-military for his own good.
How's this for analyses? The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 I'm skeptical the Knights Templar found one and even if they did when the RCC destroyed the Knights they also committed the Gospel of Jesus to the flames. A sad ending to be sure but this historically has been what the RCC has done to "heretical" writings and even the "heretics" themselves.
@@letsomethingshine I looked for Josephus referring his reader to Eugnostos and haven't found anything.
@@edwardmiessner6502 I know about the murderous crimes of the RCC - How do you call the original Gospel that Lazarus wrote "heretical writing"?
the most fun I've had reading a comments section
really interesting stuff
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own.
The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives.
Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
Richard Carrier’s not a dumb guy and certainly some intricate explanations are actually true (acts dates to around 150 and inspired other Acts books). Nevertheless, josephus almost certainly mentioned Jesus from nazareth in some capacity. origen complained that josephus wasn’t a christian, indicating that the interpolated passage didn’t exist when he was writing and that josephus did write on jews appropriated into christianity, such as Jacob and Jesus. A major point of acts was to make josephus a christian witness. There wouldn’t be motivation to do so if josephus was completely silent on these figures.
I was surprised it took until toward the end of this video to address the likelihood that Luke used Josephus rather than the reverse.
Or they both used a common source.
@@Hambone3773 - I thought the use of common sources by the two writers was the majority opinion among scholars today.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own.
The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives.
Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 Can you provide sources for this? Now if you believe in the god of the Bible and you believe Jesus is actually his son and did miracles and resurrected and all that... Well this is just one more example of gods plans getting ruined. How powerful can he be if every time he does something, humans screw it up?
@@djfrank68 The Gospel narrative itself source starting with John 21:24 "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true."
And Jesus was a great success. Acheived his mission of installing New Covenant and ending Temple services (eventually leading to the Temples destruction by deliberate provoking of the zealots into violence against Rome. Rome retaliated and destroyed the Temple for them.) - Jesus was announced as king of Israel in that choice between Jesus and Barabbas. Quickly said, Pilot dressed Jesus up as King, Pilot presented Jesus to the Sanhedrin and high priest among the crowd as "their King". Told the crowd to choose to crucify "their King" or Barabbas. The Saducees and High Priest chose "their king" Jesus to be crucified and instigated the Jewish crowd to choose "their King" to be crucified..... and so the Priesthood anointed Jesus as their king in order for him to be executed. And Pilat published this fact above Jesus head at a time when Jerusalem was most crowded of Jews from all over the realm.
What this accomplished was to legalize according to Torah law Jesus' amended covenant and make irrelevant all burdensome Talmudic rules.
I think Jesus and Pilat planned it together. Neet trick on the Sanhedrin huh.
What do you think about Appolonius of Tyana who preceded Jesus and performed miracles? Could he be Simon the Magician despised by the apostles? Could it be that his miracles have been ascribed to Jesus?
Very possible
“I’ll believe freakin’ anything as long as it confirms my biases against Christianity” - Mythicists
Apollonius didn’t precede Jesus. So by the same logic you’re using now the only speculation is whether or not he was modeled on Jesus.
Apparently, God had it be that Jesus is the celebrity, and Apolonios not.
- The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 you mean Jesus Barnabas who they call Zeus !!!! Acts 14 :12- 15
If you want to know if Josephus mentions Jesus, you should ask a scholar who specializes in Josephus. For example, Steve Mason.
everything carrier said about josephus is 100% accurate
@@cookie5535 Steve Mason says the James passage is authentic and the TF is interpolated. He ought to know since he’s an expert on Josephus.
most Josephus specialists don't give a shit about the testimonium or James passage anyway even Mason said that in 1 of his interviews
Carrier has a lengthy article dedicated to Steve Mason's view on Josephus' mentions of Jesus. It's been a while since I read through the whole thing, but it's not particularly favorable and argues that Mason is not aware of (or not interested in addressing) many of the counter arguments to his position.
@@molkien9928 I read that article and I think Carrier is completely wrong.
If Jesus the (purported) Christ actually existed he would have returned by now. Heck, this Jesus can't even be bothered to hold a ten-minute press conference proving his existence.
So, didn't Robert Eisenman conclude after much research that there was an actual brother of Jesus which therefore proved there was a real holy man (Jesus) at the center of all this. Has Eisenman been discredited?
Robert Eisenman had an educated opinion (one that Catholic "apostolic succession" disagreed with unless Eisenman was saying Jesus had mere step/half-brothers from Joseph's side, not on perpetual virgin Marry's side). Dr. Carrier has a different opinion after studying pagan religions from around 1AD/1BC and early Jewish-Christian history.
5:03-5:18 josephus was writing before acts. “Luke” was probably contemporaneous to the Didache, which is to say it was written in between “Matthew” and josephus (about 90 CE). Perhaps “Luke” was written later anyway, but i think the original wasn’t written with josephus in mind.
P.S.: i still don’t think there’s a “Q” source, but whatever.
Pontius Pilate, (Pilate Ponti), wrote letters, and memoirs, and never, ever mentioned any "Trial of Jesus", nor any case before him concerning any "False King of Israel", nor any account of any "Crucifixion". Fact is, the Romans never used crosses for executions, the condemned was tied to a single stake. Roman Law forbade family members from removing the body from the execution stake for burial: Desecration of the remains were considered part of the punishment, and a waring to other potential criminals. . . . "Paul", (Saul), was a fanatical advocate for the Christian Movement, and so far from unbiased. Josephus Flavius, was a paid propogandist, in the hire of the Roman Flavians. Josephus was adopted by the Flavian Dynasty, and given his title "Josephus Falvius".
Carrier is the incarnation of Eye twitching fringe ideas!
Rather a strange claim to make. He was happy to reference the fact that a large number of recognised scholars have all debunked the Josephus validity.
@@deviouskris3012 - Well, just look at the name - what did you expect: objectivity? ‘The Eternal Gospel’ has weighed in - what possible credibility can Dr. Carrier’s scholarship have when pitted against Eternal Truths like talking serpents or donkeys, suns arrested in mid-heaven at will, zombies, and the like? It’s obvious: open-eye, closed-eye, case closed...
you happy clappers are really starting to take notice of carrier now, aren't you :-)
it's the beginning of the end of this long running little fairly tale I'm afraid
@@haydenwalton2766 - No, fairy tales are here to stay. Reality is hard, fairy tales easy. People like easy.
@@dorianphilotheates3769 sure, I get that.
what I'm saying is that it's becoming more widely understood in the community that the historicity of the writings that became known as ' the bible' are deeply questionable - at best.
For me, what is so painfully obvious is the righteousness of the faithful, has been used as an excuse for some of the most hideous crimes in history.
Sure, if the original testimonium said anything remotely usable for Orthodox Christianity, there would be no reason to corrupt it.
Usable against whom?
The Jews believed Jesus existed but not that he was the Messiah. If you could show the Jews a book by a famous Jew though...
@@Achill101 usable to prove the existence of Jesus. The real question is whether the testimonium said nothing at all about Jesus, or something that would undermine the church at the time?
@@uncleanunicorn4571 - the historicity of Jesus was not a contentious question for Christians in the 3rd century, his divinity or status as Messiah was. The testimonium could have said something boring that Jews believed: there was Jesus who was claimed by his disciples to be the Messiah, but he was crucified, so he was not, but some disciples still believe it.
That wouldn't help the Christian position.
@@Achill101 The Gospel was a deposition testifying that the High Priest and Sanhedrin murdered a fellow Jew and member of the Davidic royal family. This testimony had to be stopped. The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
Doesn't matter how you pronounce Patreon, as long as you join :).
Derek and Mythvision accepts y'all
Josephus was my only problem with Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? Josephus has no problem using the Torah as a source for Moses, so why would it be a far fetched idea that his sources for Jesus were Christians or the Gospels written at that time?
When they say a person read a "Book" or "Scroll" from someone, how did they get ahold of these and how available were they? Certainly there had to be word of mouth and possibly a library? The only people who would seek out such material had to able to read and on some scholarly mission.
I wonder if Carrier has ever debated with Ehrman?
another carrier!
I’m making a bet with myself that he can’t go more than three minutes without saying “peer-reviewed”
Ha! 3:27! I lose but only just
Thanks 👍
Josephus’s stating that Jesus was the Christ is viewed as interpolation . But maybe those who view it that way have their own form of interpolation.
Yet, Dr. Ehrman still refers to Josephus when asked if Jesus was an historical person...🙄
Tbh even as a non-Abrahamic person, I think it's possible that a preacher called Josephus existed - just not the divine aspects or anything
@@anonymousanonymous2319 You mean "Jesus"? I think it's possible, too. That doesn't mean we have definitive evidence one way or the other.
@@anonymousanonymous2319 The Jesus who drew crowds of thousands and uttered profoundly wise sayings didn't exist, either . The authorities were suspicious of any crowds gathering in Palestine at this time. They would have taken note and it would be in the historical record.
@@drewharrison6433 sorry yeah, I meant Jesus Christ. I think the likelihood is that he existed and suggested that he had some kind of authority and was then glorified later on
He also references a bunch of non-existent documents such as the alleged "Q" document that we can't examine and for which we have no provenance. I guess the Gadarene pigs ate his homework.
I even saw a video claiming josiphus wrote the new testament for the flavian dynasty. “ did the romans invent christianity”
Matthew 3:11. Deuteronomy 4:35-36. Job 40:18-19. Job 40: 7-9. Isaiah 1:18. Proverb 30:4?!6. Jesus or Emmanuel Why do you want to go to heaven and What do you there?!. Hebyr
Doctor Carrier is the best!!
there will be a musical about his life one day; it will be a hoot.
We know about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 from Josephus and not from the NT writers .
Acknowledging that much of this video was giving (while disagreeing with) the notion that Josephus actually wrote these passages, Dr. Carrier argued that Josephus' sources would either be the Gospels (which he deems as unreliable) or else casual Christians talking about it on the street. I think given the limited context of the Testimonium, the later is not unreasonable nor uncredible. Examine this Testimonium below:
"About this time [the Pandemic], there was a black man named George Floyd who was being arrested by four police officers. Their methods and morality for making the arrest were highly debated. And when he was killed, many protests broke out in America and the rest of the world demanding justice. Indeed, a great movement erupted from this event, and the Black Lives Matters organization gained popularity and is still around today."
Note that my Testimonium of George Floyd is carefully toeing the line of the political debates regarding the historical event. And I didn't use any sources to get the details, but merely relied on general knowledge from this highly known and talked about story. It seems to me that Josephus' Testimonium is of a very similar nature, and thus his sources should not be considered unreliable.
Of course, the Classical Translation is unrealistically favorable to Jesus, but the Agapian translation is much more reasonable. The main problem with this is the line "And his conduct was good." Because I was avoiding all controversies of George Floyd, I was not able to make any judgements of his character, neither good nor evil. Maybe I could have called him innocent while still holding my apolitical standard on the Testimonium? But regarding Jesus, Jews believed him to be a heretic, so this "And his conduct was good" would be a political statement that wouldn't fit my criteria.
And of course there’s the famous ‘James’ passage in book XX. I don’t think that’s a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. I think the James who was executed was the brother of Jesus ben Damneus, the new high priest. That makes a lot more sense of the story.
Yep, there were a lot of Joshua/Jesus around. One Jesus/Joshua that Josephus described in the records kept by Ancient Christians was a rebellious Jewish General that was killed when a stone hurled by a Roman catapult landed on him during the 70AD rebellion.
Scholars affirm an initial mention with a later scribal interpolation.
The Arabic version translated by Shlomo Pines seems to be more clearly that Josephus is quoting opinion and beliefs about Jesus, not well researched background
Carrier’s take on Josephus ranks as the most unconvincing of all. Tim O’Neil has thoroughly debunked him.
No. And if you need personal proof that Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, chap. 3 Para.3 is fake simply read paragraph 2 and 4 skipping it. They flow together perfectly. The paragraph is an obvious wedged in insertion. And the reference to "James and Jesus" is about "A" james and jesus not "THE" james and jesus. This section plays fast and loose with the dialogue to try and reframe it as though its them. But its not. Its about two factions fighting directly for the high priesthood of the temple.
Why should we believe or take into account what DR RICHARD says? some by land , some by sea , just don't include me! EVERYONE has a conclusion!
Josephus mention of James was really an aside describing the actions of the new high priest who just happened to acting on someone called James brother of the one who they called Christ . The focus of the passage was not on James but on the high priest . The only reason carrier cannot determine the meaning or point of the inclusion is because he is super imposing a Christian importance to James in the passage where none existed for author
James' name would have actually been Jacob... James is a "equivalent" to Jacob only because of English history (and its later influence on common-tongue Spaniard Bibles). James was an ancient English word/name that meant "usurper" and since cob means "usurp" in Canaanite subfamily of Hebrew, Jacob means "Yahweh usurps" and so they thought saying someone named Jacob was the same as someone named James, they thought they could appeal better to the Anglo-speaking people they were conquering. And perhaps also implant the useful idea into some that Anglos were a lost tribe of Israel.
If we have to have an outside source such as Josephus to say Jesus existed, ...who then wrote about Josephus that we know Josephus existed?
Was Christian references added to Josephus in the same way Sargon 2 added the legends of Sargon 1?
The debate over the extent of later Christian interpolations to the writings of Josephus can only be a collection of theories and opinions. To belittle anyone voicing different theories by claiming they are trying to "rescue" passages shows a bias of it's own.
Added by a monk centuries later.
Eusebius.
Several comments here pose a false dichotomy of 1) Jesus was a god or 2) Josephus’ comments are interpolated.
They don’t allow for the possibility of Josephus commenting on a human who had a special position among some Jews.
Another reason why Christians (Muslims included) are allowed their FAITH.
Having faith in something and knowing something let alone with facts are two different things
- The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 Thanks for the history. It allows people of faith actual backup to the claim that the torah + bible + quran are history books that contain spiritual historical situations.
Still, people of faith are allowed their faith. History or no history, that’s the point of the word and the point of what i was saying.
But i do personally love knowing the history because an essential and core part of the all being Creator GOD is truth itself. So thank you
@@TheArmchairPriest This word 'faith' doesn't mean what it meant back then. Today when we say faith you mean blind faith. 2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: -Psalm 14
The folk healer/psychologist/mystic, I am sure did exist. Donkey riding, again repeating, big mistake. At the time of his Crucifixion, he was just major celebrity in Galilee, unknown to many. But much like MLK, a big deal in the South but unknown to many, he went big after his death. Same case when you look at Robin of Locksley when he became Robin Hood. Thomas a Bec when he defied Henry II and wasn’t a head nodding Archbishop soon to be forgotten. Greta Thurnberg. Who else do you need just to recognize obscure people can suddenly go national? Greta was just a little girl who did a protest every day outside where I forgot. Slow news day or people starting paying attention.
Once dead, resurrected, or ascended, he was an image that could easily be remolded to suit whatever you wanted. The mystic made enough weird remarks that had spiritual appeal to be quoted. He was earnest in his desire to create a better Israel. So his message wasn’t a bad one, it had incredible humanity.
He became useful to rich boy Paul in promoting Mithran faith in disguise. Plus rich boy Paul had repeated cash shortages and nothing else to do with his time. According to one interesting account, Paul (when everyone got bored with him & his repeated bad manners) claimed he, too, could resurrect, was buried, and died. Didn’t get up three days later. Other tales are getting his throat slit or getting beheaded. He actually has two bodies or is it just an extra head?
Medievals are as fond of tales as Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and everyone else.
So yes, I am sure there was a Jesus and just as sure we don’t know who he is. Useful to emperors with secret agendas is what I think when I see his image as a Roman legionnaire, Roman bangs, and suitable military wardrobe. Handy, he’s not around to say “Are you kidding?” Justinian as soldier and Jesus as a legionnaire is enough for me. I feel very sorry for him. May he one day Rest In Peace and not be used to wicked political ends.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own.
The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives.
Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
What doesn’t make any sense to me is why go from Jesus to Satan? Not that it has anything to do with Josephus.
Satan is the deceiver who cooked up all this Jesus stuff. He was jealous of the glory that the Great Gods had brought to Rome, and angry that Rome had power over his little patch of Palestine. He wanted to seduce the people from their worship of the Gods, and he succeeded. The Romans abandoned the Gods, and the result was that the Roman Empire collapsed, and Europe was plunged into a dark age of ignorance and barbarism.
Honestly wonder about the Jesus son of Ananus character that's mentioned in the Wars of the Jews, it reads like an urban legend but looks awfully like a mashup of Paul and Jesus, which makes me wonder if Josephus had heard something about Christianity but it was garbled and he just used it to back up the idea that god had sent a warning to the Jews before destroying them.
I think the story of Jesus son of Ananus is Josephus mocking the Little Apocalypse in Mark. It's so over the top that I can't take it seriously. The way this Jesus predicted his own death within seconds of it happening, to comical effect... really??? But that would mean that Mark was written right after the destruction of the Temple, and that Josephus got hold of a copy of Mark almost right away.
If Jesus had a brother, then he's at the most his half-brother.
The gospels talk of four brothers of Jesus.
Using the Greek original, a 'brother' is someone born of the same womb.
So, Mary the mother of Jesus would have had several children.
There seemed to be at least two cousins as well - the sons of Salome the sister of Mary (the mother of Jesus).
This helps us conclude that at least six of the apostles were from the family of Jesus.
@@vicmath1005 What a weird conclusion. Or does the Greek original also reeds that apostles are always family first, and friends later?
@@BorisNoiseChannel If the whole goal of Jesus was to forment a rebellion, (and there were many such rebels during the period, against the rulers), his first pick for close/trusted companions would be his own family members.
Such a notion exists today as well. Nothing special in it.
Jesus failed in his mission even before the rebellion started.
Only decades later, his stature increased.
Remember that he was a Levite. A Messiah could not be from the tribe of Levi. He had to be from the tribe of Judah. So the whole saga got changed.
@@vicmath1005 It's a story alright.
Not much to say really.
Eusebius was a typical apologist.
The thing christians would have been clamoring for after the sack of Jerusalem doesn't show up until after Eusebius gets a hold of Origen's library.
If this were Among Us, dude would be out the airlock already.
No bread with the wine?
Dude. No disrespect to Carrier, but I don't know why people hold him in such regard. He REACHES os far here that it is almost comical. First he claims that Josephus is quoting Luke for his first-which is absurd. Why would Josephus quote a gospel? He wasn't a Christian himself. But this take isn't as embarrassing as his take on James being the brother of Christ. The Bible mentions that Mary and Joseph had children by themselves. And the bible also mentions the fact that Jesus had a brother(half-brother) named "James".
Catholics and EOs would disagree with you that Jesus had a biological brother.
“Joshua is Jesus Christ…” how many actually know you’re referencing the meaning of the name or how many ever saw this??
But it's a mistake to call Jesus, Yeshua/Joshua. That cannot be Jesus' name since Joshua does not translate as God Wth Us. Jesus name was Zusa. Zusa Justus
@@termination9353 wow, Joshua means God is saviour/salvation.
Sorry / not sorry, but the Testimonium Flavianum is real. Jerome, the man who translated the bible from Greek into Latin also quoted the Testimonium Flavianum (in Latin), in his own time, the late 4th century, in his work "Of Illustrious Men." In this version that Jerome is familiar with, it goes as (from the Latin to English translation):
"In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from him, exists to the present day."
So, instead of "He was the Messiah" that we have in our versions, Jerome's version says "was believed to be Christ." Other than that Jerome's Testimonium Flavianum's is very near identical to ours. Jerome wrote this in his work "Of Illustrious Men," which was published widely, so this quote from Josephus could be cross checked by anybody during his time period, so it's highly unlikely it was fabricated.
Additionally, both Origen (in the late 2nd century) and Eusebius (in the early 4th century) also mention the existence of the Testimonium Flavianum in their works as well. Origen and Eusebius' works were actually apologetics works meant to be read by skeptics so it would also be highly unlikely that Origen and Eusebius would fabricate something that was designed to be scrutinized by non-Christian skeptics in their respective time periods. Origen has the added commentary of Josephus mentioning the word Messiah, but Josephus himself didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah, according to Origen's commentary.
Origen never mention Testimonium . Eusebius wrote Testimonium . You fraaud😡😡😡
There are 19 similarities in between Testimonium and Luke . GJ goldberg prove it 😌
Does this dude just turn up just to drink Derek's wine 🤔
What are all the interviewees about this topic Jewish?
Is Richard Carrier a know it all?
He is very knowledgeable in his field and he is confident. Is that a problem?
@@fepeerreview3150 Is the Bible his field?
@@tryme3969 He is an ancient historian, the bible is ancient history, so... yes.
@@Contagious93812 How many know it alls are there in the world?
Richard Carrier: If Josephus wrote the Testimonium Flavianum, he constructed it using the Emmaus narrative from the Gospel of Luke.
Also Richard Carrier: Luke used the works of Josephus
Come on, both can't be true at the same time :P
Carrier never said anything about Josephus writing about Jesus, the scholarly consensus is that the part about Jesus in Josephus's writings was added later by Christians, which is what Carrier also subscribes to. Carrier just said that the Emmaus narrative from Luke is what appears in the copies of Josephus we currently have.
Come on. He says 5 times that Josephus is not using Luke. He's speaking hypothetically just to slam the notion of the passage being remotely legit.
I actually agee with him but this hypothetical doesn't work if you simultaneously think that Luke wrote after Josephus.
Watch the video again and listen carefully (you can even take notes). He's answering the question, which mentions the possibility of Josephus being later than Luke, and from that very improbable point, as Richard states, he refers to an author who showed the similarity of the TF with the story in Luke's gospel. Citing carelessly does not help.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
how unique was a male name like Yeshua or Iesous at the time Josephus wrote his history? If it was a rather common name ( as I suspect ) it could be any guy named Yeshua or Iesous Flavius Josephus mentioned and later Christian copists wrung the Testemonium Flaviam out of it.
I believe Carrier says 1 in 26 Jewish males in the region was named Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua.
3,9% of all males had that name according to research.
Jesus name was not Yeshua
@@termination9353 how do you translate ישוע or Y'shua?
Jesus was the Latin transcription of Ἰησοῦς which was the Greek version of ישוע.
@@kamion53 Then that translation from the original that Greek was copied from got it wrong (Same as copied today as 'Jesus' is getting it wrong). The angel said it's a name that translates as "God with us". Yeshua/Joshua (actually pronounced Yihoshua and not spelled in Hebrew like this ישוע ) does not translate as God with us. - There is no reason not to consider that Jesus name as a Greek version... like Zusa [Zeus with us].
I had an argument with a Christian today about Josephus. 🙄
Did you win ?
No, they just insisted I was wrong and that Josephus was talking about Jesus in both cases. 🤷🏻♂️🙇🏻♂️
@@johnburn8031 I cant imagine how long an arguement it was to go down the Josephus rabbit hole 🙁
@@TheScotsalan definitely too long! 🙇🏻♂
I choose to believe nero ceasar was fake. I think the romans just added him in to their history to add to their victorious monstrosities. The evidence of him is little to none and any text of people speaking on his being couldve just been added in later
Richard Carrier is all over the place in his attempts to try to disprove the Bible.
The bible disproves itself.
Like the bible has ever been proven 😂
- The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own.
The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives.
Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
Christianity is take
Got away from a psyop but put one on his shirt
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
With such confidence he says if it were his writings he got it from Luke or somewhere other writings. With No evidence what’s so ever. WOW! What scholarly work. Assumptions that are to be taken as truths just because I have a degree. Please do better. It’s called scholarly gossip and to connect the two you would need better evidence then he must of gotten it.
He says, Jesus a man if you could call Him that, is because Jesus was not a man, silly, Jesus was the Word and the Word is not of this kingdom.
Donde dije digo, digo diego. Nada es nada y todo es falso, aunque eso es una falsedad, porque la verdad esta en lo que se hizo,pero nadie sabe que se hizo,ni quin dijo lo que dijo.( Ya entendí)
Ugh. Here's why most scholars think the Testimonium is original in a redacted form. In Antiquities Book 20.9, Josephus mentions James's execution--the one who was the "brother of Jesus who was called Christ." Now Carrier tries to argue that this is also an insertion. But that's unlikely for two reasons. First, Christians wouldn't have written that Jesus was "called Christ". The interpolations in the Testimonium have Josephus straight up saying Jesus was the Messiah. But more centrally, it doesn't make sense in text. Josephus never just name drops people without an explanation of who they are. Now Carrier tries to argue that this Jesus is just the priest mentioned in 20.9. But this would mean that Josephus just name dropped someone and then wrote later as though he never talked about the guy before (e.g. his mention of the Jesus who was the priest reads like an introduction of that character). Given that Josephus mentions "Jesus who was called Christ", he probably explained who that Jesus was before. Finally, there seems to have been a Syriac version of the Testimonium floating around that doesn't include many of the obviously interpolated phrases.
Finally, most date Luke before Josephus because he ostensibly has different details (e.g. the censuses). Further, it would be odd for Luke not to mention the destruction of Jerusalem given that this was actually an empire-wide-worthy story, and pertinent to the end of the sacrificial system.
"Ugh. Here's why most _christian_ scholars think the Testimonium is original in a redacted form."
ftfy
Christian’s would never have written “called Christ” accept when they did in Matthew 1:16, 27:17 and John 4:25
@@molkien9928 This is why they say context is key. I was obviously talking about interpolations. When they put words in Josephus's mouth, they have him confessing Jesus as Christ. And further, that wasn't my only argument.
@@rainbowkrampus That's simply incorrect. Bart Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist makes this point too; the majority opinion at even SBL, even among most secular scholars, is that it has an authentic core. You learn this when you listen to voices outside of a silo.
@@anglicanaesthetics what do you mean “you were talking about interpolations”?
Are you trying to argue Christian’s wouldn’t add “called Christ” into a document?
I’m not even sure what this first argument is supposed to be? It sounds like you think Josephus really wrote the phrase “called Christ” and your first argument for that is that Christians wouldn’t have used that phrase if they were going to insert text into earlier documents. But they did use that phrase, so it seems as if your argument is, if they **were** going to insert something, they wouldn’t have used **that** phrase.
Am I misunderstanding you?
A few assumptions are made here as fact , 1 is that all baptized Christian’s are called “brothers “ of Christ . I think he is super imposing a modern interpretation on to historical references .
Yep, most people tend to do that when they want to indoctrinate regardless of the side theyre on
Unless he roots his argument in evidence that this was a practice THEN as well…. Which he does
@@Mr.Witness .. the adult baptism was common. Baptizing babies and calling eachother brothers are two modern acts that were not at all common then, not enough to be generalized as the entirety of the situation back when
@@TheArmchairPriest in his book he argues that adult baptism and referring to fellow Christians as brothers was common . I dont know why your talking about babies.
@@TheArmchairPriest In Ehrman’s book, “The Triumph of Christianity”, he mentions that one of the stories knocking Christians was that they performed acts of incest. This came about about because Christians referred to each other as brothers and sisters and greeted each others with a kiss.
I would think if the writngs of Josephus got changed scholars would have noticed at the time and pointed it out
Kind of hard to do when the only scholars around at the time would consider it a prerequisite to insert shit into his texts
Yup. The Roman empire was awash with scolars doing multi year reports. I am sure emails were being fired off from all corners after Josephus published his paper. 😂
@@TheScotsalan 🤣
@@TheScotsalan thats not what they mean. Theyre saying you would either find evidence that it was physically edited, or there would be older and younger copies of the text that either include or exclude certain things
The consensus amongst secular scholars today is that Josephus’ writings were changed, specifically in regards to the TF. But those scholars will attempt to argue that there is a portion of it that are authentic.
Carrier is arguing here that none of the TF is authentic.
Everyone agrees it was changed, the disagreement is to what extent it was.
You guys are really desperate to prove Jesus doesn't exist. It's interesting that he is the only guy everyone is so determined to prove wrong or doesn't exist etc. You remind me of the flat earthers or the holocaust deniers. All for what? Because a guy who gave people hope and encouraged a better life. It's like your ex girlfriend... just let her go and move on.
and the guy still gives hope and inspiration; I don't imagine most Christians care about the origins of the story.
@Russell Miles exactly. It's a bit trivial. His words are most important, not what clothes he wore, food he liked, mountain he visited, his favorite color, did so and so exist, somebody's mothers fathers uncles sister heard a story about a guy who seemed interesting but no one knows because that other person isn't credible and Joe, well he is always drunk, and barny is blind and deaf, so he's not reliable and it just made up because so and so had a story similar, so it all must just be fake... and on and on and on.
If Jesus was a fictional character used in moral tales that would be fine. Pretending he's a god is taking it a bit far.
@Churly there are too many things in the new Testament to indicate it's not made up. Plus, if it was made up, then what's even more amazing is the fact they came up with a perfect way of living as some kind of unintended consequence. While you're making up something, you at the same time actually reveal the best way to live? That's seems unlikely. A possibility, but highly unlikely. For me there are too many things that say it is true and not made up by man.
@@churly9717 - the question is if Christus was a mythological or a historical man. That's a question of history, not theology.
The Gospels are far more authentic then the works of Josephus. The earliest surviving manuscript of "The Antiquities of the Jews" is from the 11th century. I don't believe in anything written 1000 years later. We have no idea how the original looked like.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 John 21:24 doesn't write that
@@brilliantbeaches5389 John 21:24 "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true."
John 11:5
Now Jesus LOVED Martha, and her sister, and LAZARUS
John 11:3
Therefore his sisters sent unto him{Jesus], saying, Lord, behold, HE[Lazarus] WHOM THOU LOVEST is sick..
John11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he[Jesus] LOVED him[Lazarus]!
Ugh, Carrier... the biggest joke out there imo. I’m with Neal from the Gnostic Informant’s view towards Carrier
What's Neil's view?
@@Hambone3773 About the length of his nose.
@@Hambone3773 that Carrier is two faced, cherry picks from the New Testament when he often says you cannot use it, BUT it’s ok for him to do so when it fits his needs.
He’s dishonesty, like claiming Philo speaks of a Jesus angels when there is NO such thing.
His lack of respect for those who do not share his views.
The list goes on. Check Neal’s videos on it, he has a few and one came out yesterday IF I am not mistaken.
I’ve had NO use for Carrier for at least 6 or 7 years now. I was interested in the mythicism claims and as I watched him I shook my head on things he was full of crap on. I have knowledge on a lot of what he’s presented over the years and I rarely agree with his stances
@@rainbowkrampus I think he has balls for calling Carrier what he is. He’s not afraid to lose viewers or followers by calling Carrier the spade he is, major props to Neil
@@atheistapostate7019 Hey, if you're happy admiring a dude who tripled down on an ad pop fallacy, more power to you I guess.
Personally, I don't have time for people who abandon reason just because their friend who was being an a-hole got put in their place.
667th 👍 Because I want to...
Josephus did not have the Gospels. They were minor, fringe works at the time, only disseminated amongst a group of weirdos known as followers of "The Way".