Regardless of the baseless hatred that many spew in view of the historical record--not to mention the historical record of the Celts and British and pre-Roman Christians at Glastonbury, etc., the video simply states historical evidence of the existence of Jesus, the crucifixion/hanging of Jesus and the miracle working and includes the Talmud itself as a source of such information. The modern trend is to lie, lie, lie just for the sake of lying so as to get as many folks over into worshiping (i.e. serving) the creatures of men as possible.
Its worth noting that term "Christian" was also used by Simon Magus' followers. Biblically, it is a term that was used to refer to followers of Jesus by those at Antioch. Furthermore, the Romans are said to have embraced Simon Magus but to have rejected Jesus. So this idea of Rome being aligned with Jesus seems rather fallacious.
Christian, Christ, Anointed, Anointings
More noteworthy is the significance of having an anointing in the OT and the NT. To be anointed is to be granted power and authority by God. Anointed and the word Christ are rather hand-in-hand. The concept is not new to the Brit Hassadah or NT. Anointing was the key to power rather than some mystical, secret rite.
If Josephus defected to the side of the Romans wouldn't he have been more inclined to have said hateful/negative things about Jesus especially since the Romans were clearly on a mission to exterminate his followers? Wouldn't he have simply omitted mention? I have trouble seeing how anyone with a a sane, clear-minded, reasonable perspective could see Josephus as anything other than neutral. Among the "plebes", it was believed that the presence of the followers of Jesus were the cause behind the failing of the oracles and such following the crucifixion--so the Romans tended to blame the followers of Jesus and associate their presence with inhibition of the functioning of oracles, etc. Clearly, Josephus would not have been biased with the Romans and made any positive mention of Jesus. If Josephus was highly partial to the Romans it is more likely that he would omitted mention of Jesus or would have simply been negative.
Traitors Against?
If Josephus or Jesus were traitors, who could they possibly have been traitors against? In ancient Israel, was there such a thing as being a traitor against anyone other than God? Did not Daniel with Divine Assistance foretell the events that transpired by 70AD? Who would call Daniel a traitor?
As for later fiddling with Testimonium Flavium it is possible. Skepticism might be an antiseptic for the mind, but blind hatred posing as truthfulness is far from that. In any cause, comparison of Greek and Arabic texts shows that in any case, his (Jesus') existence, his being crucified and the resurrection are found in both the Greek and Arabic copies.
***
Note: The underlined portions are alleged to be 'interpolations' or 'inserts'. So if we throw those out, we are left with a record that shows the existence and crucifixion of Jesus along with reference to the notion of his having been resurrected. Its worth noting that the Pentateuch has at least one resurrection event.
The idea of Roman State Religion being the source of the doctrines of Jesus is a myth purposed to bury the truth. How could Roman State Religion be the source of what was clearly external to and allegedly embraced by Constantine hundreds of years after 70AD? The Romans started on a campaign to destroy and undermine the Ecclesia's positions throughout North Africa and the British Isles and the historical record shows it. Even Afro-Centric writers such as Chancellor Williams and history about the Hawaiian Kahunas allege a destructive and spiritual subterfuge coming from Rome to their lands.
The video while not centered on Josephus, does contain clarifications about the multiple statements Josephus made about Jesus--there was more than one reference. But Josephus isn't the only. Again this intended to be historical rather than philosophical.
Also, anyone with wisdom then regarded the 66-70AD to be a Divine Judgment period rather than a mere war. Josephus (a priest) may have seen what others may have been unwilling or unable to see. Its interesting that Josephus was regarded to be a traitor but where are such allegations are made against Daniel or Esther? Josephus was held as a slave/captive until 69AD. Josephus was a priest and perhaps was highly aware that prophecies were unfolding right before his eyes then. Josephus is said to have been aware of Daniel's timeline and regarded it to be significant to his time.
When I do research, I avoid going in with hateful bias or expecting this or that.
Resurrection
Regardless of the fallacies that some have attempted to propagate, the OT and the NT are hardly disconnected. Resurrections are mentioned in several places in the OT.
- 1 Kings 17:17-24 (KJV)
- 2 Kings 4:35 (KJV)
- 1 Kings 13:21 (KJV)
The concept or idea of belief of resurrection of the dead is mentioned also:
- Job 19:25
- Daniel 12:2
- Isaiah 26:19.
So when the same people who attack Josephus also deny such and such is in the OT (baptism/mikveh, resurrection) such gives even more cause for being very prayerful or cautious about believing what they say--because why would they say such things unless they are hiding something? Likewise, a healthy skepticism should go into reading much of anything. Even still, if all sides are hiding something, what are they hiding? Is it worth finding out?
Related:
Reply With Quote