Josephus and Jesus... And John the Baptist??

Jesus of Galillee was reportedly baptised by John the Baptist. Throughout the New Testament you hear nothing but praise for John the Baptist from Jesus.

People argue as to whether or not the mention of Jesus by Josephus constitutes enough to claim that Jesus did, in fact, exist. And on this alone, I would be inclined to agree that it is not enough. So, what about John the Baptist? Does Josephus' comments about this man lead one to believe that COMBINED with his comments on Jesus that he did exist?

"As a result Aretas invaded Antipas’ territory. Antipas’ army was defeated which some Jews saw as divine vengeance for Antipas’ execution of John the Baptist. Antipas is stated to have executed John because he feared John’s teachings could lead to unrest. (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.2-9)"

Okay, we see that both Jesus AND John the Baptist were mentioned by Josephus...

This is interesting, imo. Not for the fact that Jesus did exist, and is evidenced to HAVE, in fact, existed, but for what Josephus actually says about John the Baptist.
"John's teachings could lead to unrest."
Why? Well, obviously the people concerned with the unrest are the Romans who are holding the land of Palestine by force. So they are the ones concerned. Apparently they were also concerned with the teachings of John's pupil's teachings (Jesus himself) as they killed Jesus for treason.

He was a revolutionary.

This brings me to modern day conflicts in the same region.
Who are today's revolutionaries? The "clergymen" mastermining terrorist attacks.

SSDD. (same *stuff* different day)

Maybe it is a good time for American Christians to look closely at the Government they support.

They have been duped. Big time.

While theologians will argue that Paul lived about 30 AD, there is some evidence that Paul and Josephus are one and the same person. Josephus lived around 60AD, which would make the New Testament a bit younger than theologians would have one believe.

The Jesus of the bible was probably Jesus of Gamala, which Josephus spoke of regularly.

Read the book King Jesus for a better understanding of what I am talking about.

It is sorta' funny really.
A couple of weeks ago some mormons gave me a "postcard" of Jesus Christ when they tried to sell their version of God to me. I was as gracious as possible, but as soon as they left, I laughed my ass off for quite some time.
You see, their picture of Jesus looked like Charleston Heston's stunt-double from the ten comandments movie.
I have always said, if you want to know what jesus ACTUALLY looked like, look at Osama Bin Laden. (always said since bin laden was sold to us as a boogey-man, that is)

And this is true. Not only would Jesus have resembled him more closely than Hollywood actors due to the fact that he was from the same area geographically, with similar lineage, but in his actions as well.

A man with a message who may, or may not, have actually done anything to the oppresive Government.

America is LITERALLY the "Great Satan" of the bible.
It is time for the Christers to wake up to this fact.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by JayinAR]

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


Thanks for the suggestion.
But I find that highly doubtful.
I'll check out the book you speak of, but I must say that I disagree initially because I believe that if Josephus was actually Paul, then he would have spoken much, much more about Jesus.

You see, Paul was TURNED from the Romans BECAUSE OF Jesus. That leads me, logically, to believe that Paul thought the world of the man and that if he had actually written the Jewish Histories then he would have done everything he could have done to verify Jesus historically.
Instead, we have but scant mention of him, even within Josephus' work.

I'll check it out, but I do so skeptically.
Thanks for the contribution, though. Star.

Originally posted by JayinAR

They have been duped. Big time.

Honestly, Jayin, we grow up being lied to, not just about spirituality, but politics, life, everything. We live in a great big lie.

What we think is true and what is really true are all together separate things. The problem is that we don't analyze what we want to believe and what we should believe. All too often, we ignore things that we should believe in favor of things that we want to believe, especially when what we should believe in is completely contradictory to what we ought to believe.

If one wants to find the truth, it is probably best to look at an answer that lies between what we want to believe and what we should believe. That is where the truth is found.



[edit on 11-9-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 11-9-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


That is all well and good, but what does it have to do with Jesus existing through Josephus' work or not?

reply to post by JayinAR

You see, Paul was TURNED from the Romans BECAUSE OF Jesus. That leads me, logically, to believe that Paul thought the world of the man and that if he had actually written the Jewish Histories then he would have done everything he could have done to verify Jesus historically. Instead, we have but scant mention of him, even within Josephus' work.

Um, Paul was Saul, and he was originally a Pharisees. Jesus absolutely spoke against the Pharisees as an evil group of "vipors". I don't think Saul did anything, but cash in on the People who followed the teachings of Jesus. Also, I think what We know today of his teachings are far from the truth. I think through Paul, and Pharisees distortion, deceptions, and subversions We at best have rumors of the original teachings.

I would liken Paul to JFK's infamous speech on the repugnant nature of Secret Societies to Our society.

Er, just my two pesos, I don't do too much religious talk though

S&F

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
Um, Paul was Saul, and he was originally a Pharisees. Jesus absolutely spoke against the Pharisees as an evil group of "vipors". I don't think Saul did anything, but cash in on the People who followed the teachings of Jesus.

Well, he cashed in, but it really wasn't on the teachings of Christ. The Christianity that Jesus and James followed was not the same form of Christianity that Paul propagated. Jesus and James were of the Essene sect at Qumran..... They did not have the same teachings as that of Paul's Christianity.

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


"The tribune came and asked Paul, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?" And he said, "Yes." The tribune answered, "It cost me a large sum of money to get my citizenship." Paul said, "But I was born a citizen." (Acts 22.27-8)"


In all actuality, Saul was a coward who turned from Rome when he faced a great host in the Phillistines.
But he is a nominal figure in the story-line nonetheless.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by JayinAR]

reply to post by JayinAR


A lot actually. Josphus spoke of Jesus the Christ, which actually means "king." If you read the writings of Josephus, he speaks of Jesus of Gamala a lot. That was Jesus the Christ.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


Yes, there is no doubt that Jesus was referred to as a King.
He called HIMSELF a King.
That wasn't the point I questioned you on, though.

I questioned the post of yours that was hard to follow as you were speaking of half-truths, or whatever.

The point of the thread was a question. A question to those who couldn't accept Josephus' scant mention of Jesus as evidence of his existence. It was more of a question to John the Baptist's mentions in conjunction with those and asking if said people would accept THAT as evidence.

Originally posted by JayinAR
The point of the thread was a question. A question to those who couldn't accept Josephus' scant mention of Jesus as evidence of his existence. It was more of a question to John the Baptist's mentions in conjunction with those and asking if said people would accept THAT as evidence.

Well, given that humanity's history is rather scanty to start out with, it is really no surprise that there is little mention of Christ. We have a hard enough time knowing what exactly occurred 500 years ago, much less nearly 2000 years ago.

Also, you have to realize that, if what is given is true, neither Paul nor Josphus knew Christ. However, in the book KING JESUS, Ralph Ellis puts together the argument that Christ was here after the consensus.

Supposedly, the New Testament was written anywhere from 30-80 years after Christ had come and gone. Josephus Flavius wasn't here until 60 years after. So to think he'd have much to say about Christ is rather presumptuous.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by JayinAR
The point of the thread was a question. A question to those who couldn't accept Josephus' scant mention of Jesus as evidence of his existence. It was more of a question to John the Baptist's mentions in conjunction with those and asking if said people would accept THAT as evidence.

Well, given that humanity's history is rather scanty to start out with, it is really no surprise that there is little mention of Christ. We have a hard enough time knowing what exactly occurred 500 years ago, much less nearly 2000 years ago.

It is scanty because, time after time, the rulers decide what is the 'concensus' and suppress all other information that contradicts that concensus. Two thousand years ago, religion can be seen as a proto-political structure. It served as an administrative body and religious institutions were often the place where business deals were conducted. The easiest way in which to excluded a trade competitor was to refuse entry to the temple to those who practised other religions. And, of course, taxation comes into play, enforced homogeny in religious practice would mean taxation and tythe would go to only one body. What we do know, from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammandi Gospels is that, at that time, there was a need to conceal writings. These are two examples that survived, how many more are still hidden, or were destroyed all together?

As to 500 years ago, depends where you're talking about, in the UK, the history record is quite intricately detailed, if still a little class biased due to literacy levels at the time.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Also, you have to realize that, if what is given is true, neither Paul nor Josphus knew Christ. However, in the book KING JESUS, Ralph Ellis puts together the argument that Christ was here after the consensus.

Supposedly, the New Testament was written anywhere from 30-80 years after Christ had come and gone. Josephus Flavius wasn't here until 60 years after. So to think he'd have much to say about Christ is rather presumptuous.

I apologise if it has already been mentioned but can you point me to the books/chapters of Joesphus's contributions to the Bible?

Thank you.

Originally posted by shamhat
I apologise if it has already been mentioned but can you point me to the books/chapters of Joesphus's contributions to the Bible?

Thank you.

Well, if you read the book KING JESUS... You will find that Josephus and Paul may have very well been one in the same person. They both had similar life histories.

The whole premise of the book is that the BIG secret that the vatican is concealing is that Paul, Jesus, et cetera, actually lived later than what is traditionally believed. In the case of Paul and Josephus, you are talking about a 30-40 year differentiation.

To say that Jesus was not written about by Josephus may be a misnomer.

However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being untypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.

Jesus is mentioned again in the writings of Josephus, in the Antiquities, Book 20, 200. James, the Brother of Jesus is also mentioned.

"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned."

Looky, Looky

That Jesus of Galilee was a rebel leader, is evident in allegorical format from the crucifixion story in the Gospels. In original Greek translations of the Bible, Barabbas, who was freed instead of Christ, is referred to as Jesus Barabbas. Barabbas, the murderer set free instead of Jesus Christ ,as per Christian tradition and the extant Gospels.

Abba means "father" in Aramaic. Barabbas or bar-abbas, translates to "son of the father" which could be a surname, but makes little sense and it is not common in any other Hebrew or Aramaic text. [Bar- abba is found in the story of Jesus Pandera and Abba also appears as a personal name in the Gemara section of the Talmud. Abba has also been found as a personal name on a First Century grave site at Giv'at ja-Mivtar .]



Jesus sometimes referred to God as "father;" Jesus' use of the Aramaic word Abba survives untranslated in most English translations.

Hmmm

You see, we claim to know a lot, much in the same manner of prophecy, about history. Yet, we can not really understand history or prophecy without understanding the mindset of the people of the times they were made.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
Um, Paul was Saul, and he was originally a Pharisees. Jesus absolutely spoke against the Pharisees as an evil group of "vipors". I don't think Saul did anything, but cash in on the People who followed the teachings of Jesus.

Well, he cashed in, but it really wasn't on the teachings of Christ. The Christianity that Jesus and James followed was not the same form of Christianity that Paul propagated. Jesus and James were of the Essene sect at Qumran..... They did not have the same teachings as that of Paul's Christianity.

Yeah the Essene way seems to be more of what the Christ was teaching as opposed to modern day christianity. Ever read the Essene prophecy? Very similar to John's revelation, but put's the blame of the world's current state on the shoulder's of man instead of a supernatural dragon and AC.

America is LITERALLY the "Great Satan" of the bible.
It is time for the Christers to wake up to this fact.

You know, last night I was reading Daniel's vision about the four beasts(beasts meaning nations). The last beast was exceedingly terrible and strong and was unlike any other before it, and it consumed the whole Earth and smashed it into pieces. It was made of iron and had had ten horns, with a smaller horn coming up after with eyes like a man , and speaking 'great things'.

I feel this is my own country, the USA. In a sense we have a polluted the whole Earth, not just by force, but by spreading are idea of 'freedom' across the globe. Also, we are a nation that is like none other before it and we now occupy the very place where Daniel had this vision, Babylon (modern day Iraq).

Someone said that if you wanna see the real image of Christ to look at a picture of Osama Bin Laden, lol you're not far off there buddy! =]

reply to post by Centurionx


You're right. Not to get off topic, but the AC figure is rather interesting and very misunderstood. What is so interesting is that what the AC will try to do is not going to be wrong, it is the measures he will take in order to accomplish his mission that God will take issue with.