Shalom Israel this lapa yaaah giving all praises to the Messiah and today I want to go ahead and do an examination of Josephus teddicus and fellow of Alexandria now the reason I want to do an examination of these men is because these men are the focal point of some people's arguments when it comes to proving the existence of Jesus some people believe that you can prove the existence of Jesus with just one of these men so today we're going to take a look at all three to see just how true that is now a fellow of Alexandria is somebody important to talk about when having this conversation because fellow of Alexandria lived during the time period of Jesus he's believed to live from 20 BCE to 50 C II so he was there for the entire duration of Jesus existence he also had a nephew called Marcus Julius Alexander who married the Herodian King Agrippa's daughter Bernice he had another nephew named Tiberius Julius Alexander who was a procurator of Judea under Claudius he also represented the Alexandrine Jews and a delegation with the Roman Emperor Caligula I bring up this information just so we can make note that not only was he a contemporary of Jesus but he was also married into the Herodians and he was clearly aware of the issues between the Romans and the Jews and as I said he represented the alexandrine Jews with which were a mix of Greeks and real Jews in the particular region in which he lived in he was elected to lead this delegation because of his eldership and knowledge so this man was not on the sidelines during the time period of Jesus this man was very involved in everything that was going on and he was held to a high degree by a lot of Jews obviously by being elected to lead them in this delegation even Josephus makes mention of him himself in his writings to commend him on the things in which it is that he did now with all of this being said and even another person we have historically supporting him I say these things just to make you aware of how involved this individual was during this time period and with all of that being stated he still never mentions Jesus his disciples or any of narrated events in the New Testament which is a huge red flag why would somebody who lived during the time of Jesus who supposedly was a believer in Jesus because people believe they can find him in his writings why is it that he never mentions him not once he wouldn't need to write about him prophetically because he's already there what would be the point in him not documenting any of the events that even took place why doesn't he mention anybody now even with that fact people still feel as though they can see Jesus in his writings so let's take a look at what people are talking about now I'm gonna let it be known from the beginning that I'm not going to read every single passage in its entirety simply because they would make this video way too long but as you can see you clearly have the book you clearly have the chapters you clearly have the paragraphs and sections you can look this information up on your own now in one of the writings of Philip called on the confusion of tongues now it says that fellow heard from one of the companions of Moses a man whose name is the East that's people's main point in this entire passage now fillo doesn't go on to state exactly what it is that this means where exactly who it is that he's talking about he kind of goes on to talk about how he thinks an individual would be given that name because they would be after the divine image of the Most High and how that individual will only receive that type of name if it pleased the father to give him that type of name it's honestly a little strange but what people try to do in order to draw a parallel between Jesus is pulled this verse Zechariah chapter 6 verse 11 through 13 thus speak of the Lord of Hosts saying behold the man whose name is the branch and he shall grow up out of his place and he shall build the temple of the Lord even he shall build the temple of the Lord and he shall bear the glory and shall sit and rule upon his throne and he shall be a priest upon his throne and the counsel of peace shall be between them both now the correlation that people try to make between this and the last passage that we just read is the Greek word and a totally now I know you're thinking that Zechariah wasn't written in Greek but and in fact was in the Greek Septuagint which is what the focus is here in the Greek Septuagint where the ancient Greek can be found people say that this word can mean East and it also can mean branch so they say when phyllo was talking about the man whose name is the East they say it's the same person in Zachariah whose name is the branch and you'll notice that I have Joshua highlighted there because they'll also say that that's a foreshadowing of Jesus because Joshua translated in Greek is Jesus well if you haven't noticed the issue with this already let me break this down for you one fellow is very good at letting you know when he's quoting a particular prophet but he doesn't do so in this instance he instead says I have also heard one of the companions of Moses so we know this is not Zachariah he's not quoting Zachariah so you can't use that number two when we go back to Zachariah chapter 6 verse 9 we see Zechariah say and the word of the Lord came unto me then when I jumped down it says then take silver and gold and make crowns and set them upon the head of joshua the son of josedech the high priest and speak unto him saying does speak of the Lord of Hosts saying behold the man whose name is the branch and he shall grow up out of his place and he shall build the temple of the Lord you can't say that this Joshua is a symbolization of Jesus because then you would be saying that Jesus is going to be told about who was actually the branch because that's exactly what's going on right here with this Joshua Joshua is being told about who is the actual branch it's not saying that he is the branch on top of that this isn't even the son of David isn't that who is supposed to come from why doesn't it say David there who was this now in the same passage that we just looked at we have an individual who's believed to be a quote-unquote early church father name Eusebius and in his writings called the history of the church he writes this about this passage of Philip it seems likely fillo wrote this after listening to the expositions of the Holy Scriptures and it is very probable that what he calls short works by their early writers where the Gospels the apostolate writings and in all probability passages interpreting the old prophets such as one contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews and several others of Paul's epistles now just in case you didn't notice something I highlighted in red for you it says it seems likely it is very probable and in all probability meaning he's guessing he's not saying this with a hundred percent of surety in himself he's guessing but then he tries to end it off with this it is also recorded that under Claudius villo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter meaning the Apostle Peter then preaching to the people there it is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with wholehearted approval the apostolate men of his day now before I begin to the era of this take a look at the last part that I read the apostolate men of his day because once again we're speaking about somebody who actually lived during the era of Jesus and His disciples now Eusebius claims that fillo had a conversation with Peter and then we're now preaching after that I guess they had a unity campus which some people would say but what's very interesting about this is that fillo himself never writes about this why would fellow not document his conversation with an apostle of Jesus how did that slip his mind how did he give us all of this other information but yet failed to give us that doesn't make sense but we'll learn something else about Eusebius as we go on I also want to just give my two cents really quick based upon UCB his book I purchased this book awhile ago just because I heard he was an early church father and I just wanted to have it as a collection my library I personally have this book right here and I honestly would recommend nobody get it because it's not a lot of information in there it really isn't that good you can see some of the reviews and you see how people talk about it I knew that from jump I just wanted to see it for myself and honestly I will recommend anybody who is gonna get it don't pay no more than ten dollars for it it's really not worth it but I mean do as you please that was just my two cents now another writing of Phil Oh what people try to say they can see Jesus in is the special laws where it says now the image of God is the word by which all the world was made now of course after reading this immediately people will go to this John chapter 1 verse 1 2 3 in the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God the same was in the beginning with God all things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made so people say that is what fillo was talking about here he's making mention of that well here's the first issue with that one the book of John did not come before the writings of Philip so if anybody was getting that from anybody it would have been the other way around fellows writings predate the book of John number 2 it all really circles back to the same thing why would filo say this why would he talk about this in a prophetic sense but yet not make mention of the man who's around during his exact time why wouldn't he talk about him why doesn't he say his name why doesn't he even talk about any of the events if you can say this then why didn't you say anything else why didn't you say his name why don't you mention any of his wonderful works why don't you mention any of his powers or anything that you knew about anything you saw why don't you talk about Jesus why do you keep leaving us these little hints these little things that we have to interpret for ourselves and we have to try to see Jesus in it or he might have been talking about this why don't he just make it plain he made everything else plain and what it is that he believed and what else that he saw and the things he participated in why is everything having to do with Jesus have to be read in between the lines when you were there in the time period of this man yourself this does not make sense so with one word – Eggs what is talking about here well I would say this Psalms 33 verse 6 by the word of the Lord where the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth what fellow said was true I don't discredit that writing but he wasn't talking about Jesus he was just talking about the most highest creation exactly how scripture states when we see the word you can interpret whatever it is you want by that nonetheless he still never makes mention of him and we have to keep trying to decipher his writings in order to try to see Jesus somewhere now going back to the very first passage that I showed you a fellow of Alexandria on the confusion of tongues there was something that I left out but I left it out for good reason just to get to this point for the father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son whom in another passage he calls the firstborn so once again after reading something like that people immediately go to this Colossians 1 in 15 who is the image of the invisible God the firstborn of every creature and people will say this is what Fela was talking about once again fill those writings predate the new testament so if anything it would have to be the other way around and not only that if we're going to hold on to that term firstborn and we're going to make that a big deal then we need to recall who was considered the firstborn prior to that ever being written which was Israel in Exodus chapter 4 verse 22 and this is the most high telling us this himself not an apostle or not any other man telling us this the most I told us this himself who his firstborn was so we really shouldn't try to play that game now if you're unfamiliar with this I highly encourage you to do your research about fillo before you try to use this to help you prove Jesus because you'll wind up going against your own belief as an Israelite it's the doctrine of the logos in fiddles writings the pivotal and the most developed doctrine in fillos writings on which hinges his entire philosophical system is his doctrine of the logos by developing this doctrine he fused Greek philosophical concepts with Hebrew religious thought and provided the foundation for Christianity now will you go on to read you'll see how the Greek metaphysical concepts of the logos was in sharp contrast to the concept of a personal God meaning this is where many believed that the Trinity doctrine stems from right here in Phil's writings now although people consider Phil oh the foundation of Christianity and where the ideology is stemming from that it simply is just what's being interpolated about what it is that he wrote because we got to think back to what is that I told you in the beginning him leading the delegation of Jews to the Roman Empire what was that about now Phil Oh actually wrote about that now the entire purpose of the delegation the entire dispute was the Romans and the Greeks wanted them to put up statues and graven images of the Emperor and they wanted them to look at him as a God – and Phil oh and the rest of the Alexandrian Jews were completely against that they said they would serve nobody other than the Most High and this is what led to the conflict now with that being stated we see that fellow was willing to give his life and went to the Romans face-to-face to let them know that they would not worship anybody other than the Most High so it's kind of hard to say a man like that is the foundation of Christianity unless you're reading something into his writings now let's take a look at teddicus now Atticus is pretty much just known for this one writing right here talks about the Christians being killed and tortured for their abominations and it talks about the one individual in which it is that their name stems from who they call crisis from whom the name had its origin and they said this individual suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of one of our procurator's Pontius Pilate now I don't take the same exact stance that other people do because I try to look at things unbias Li now one of the things that people will say is that teddicus wasn't born until 56 c/e he wasn't born to a 56 EE meaning he was born over 20 years after Jesus had already died meaning by the time he was able to read and comprehend exactly what it was he was reading about any event like this that we've been around 70 seee now people make note of that because around that time period it's believed when the first gospel was written so people will try to say that Atticus might have been indoctrinated now I personally don't adhere to that theory and the reason I don't adhere to that theory is because we don't see this writing in a Christian format he doesn't say this like a Christian but that he wants you to believe in Jesus so much I don't see that being an issue with this passage people throw that out there which is understandable but when we read the actual text in itself it doesn't seem as though that's what he's doing so I'm not going to adhere to that myself personally but well I will take from that is the fact that he didn't give a reference he did not provide a reference when he stated this and once again it's important to know what time period he was born and by the time he actually made this writing this right here was decades removed from when this event happened so the point I'm making is how the static is know about this where did he get his information from your decades removed from when this happened how do you know he gives no type of reference as to where he's getting this information from so are you going off of word of mouth is this just a popular story told around how do you know this but aside from that that's the only issue I take with this passage now I say the best one for last let's take a look at Flavius Josephus now I need to read a few things about Josephus before we even get started when we take a look at the life of Flavius Josephus in his own writings he talks about how at the age of fourteen that the high priest consulted him on many occasions and noted to get an accurate understanding of the law at the age of fourteen that's to show you how knowledgeable he was at the age of fourteen now at the age of sixteen he became so consumed with the law in the writings of the prophets that he wanted to figure out between the three six meaning the Pharisees the Sadducees and the scenes who exactly had the best doctrine who was the most knowledgeable and what it was that they were talking about so he set out on a mission to determine that by trying himself with hard questions and continuously reviewing the law and the scriptures trying to get a better understanding while reviewing these other sects doctrines at the same exact time and not only that but during that time period he essentially went through a spiritual fasting where he met up with an individual who lived in the desert who ate nothing but the fruits and the vegetables that grew of themselves and washed himself with cold water day and night in order to abstain himself from women abstain from having sex and after three years of doing that he became a Pharisee at the age of 19 years old many believed that the whole entire purpose of Josephus writings is for him to regain his reputation to regain the reputation in which he once had as one of the most knowledgeable individuals that were around so when we review what it is that we just learned before going any further he was consulted by high priests at the age of 14 years old he studied the doctrine of the Pharisees Sadducees and the scenes and did a spiritual fast for three years all at the age of 16 years old at the age of 19 he became a Pharisee he was also appointed to be a general of one of the army of the Jews and the believed purpose of his writings is to regain his reputation about the knowledgeable individual in which it is that he is so please remember all of that while I read this the antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter 3 paragraph 3 now there was about this time Jesus a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man for he was a doer of wonderful works a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure he drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles he was the Christ and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us had condemned him to the cross those that loved him at the first did not forsake him for he appeared to them alive again the third day as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10000 other wonderful things concerning him and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day honestly there's so much wrong with this passage I don't even know where to begin so let's just start here number one that's it this is all that we have about Jesus from an individual who completely consumed himself with Torah and to not since the age of 14 who high priests even consulted in order for the accuracy of its understanding the man who many say today Jesus the Christ the one who this entire book is about he comes in the volume of the book Josephus gives this man a paragraph he does not go on to elaborate any more about Jesus himself you can find this online if you don't have the book already read the passage before this then read the one after it read the rest of the chapter he'll read the entire book read all of the works of Josephus Josephus is so beloved of many historians because of the extensive information in which it is he gives when he's on a certain topic he's going to elaborate on it extensively and let you know exactly what it is that he's talking about and I'm going to prove that throughout the rest of this video but when it comes to the Word of God manifested in the flesh the first creation of God that created everything after himself the Messiah the king of Israel the only begotten Son the Lord of lords the King of Kings Alpha and Omega the Lamb that taketh away sin from the world the Savior when it comes to him there's no need for elaboration from Josephus he just gets a paragraph this person is supposedly the entire purpose of the writings that you've been reading your entire life why would you give this individual a paragraph and remember we're not talking about somebody of today's time not that that would actually matter because if I asked you to write me something about Jesus you would give me a lot more than just a paragraph you couldn't even fit it into a paragraph didn't it say in the book of John if everything was written that he did that the world couldn't contain the books so how does Josephus give this man a paragraph especially when he was around during the time in which he existed he didn't see him himself but he was not far removed from when he existed so the stories and things that he must have why would you give him a paragraph you feel no need to elaborate as to why you say if it be lawful to call him a man you feel no need to elaborate on what wonderful works in which he did on what truth he supposedly taught men and how he drew the Jews and Gentiles together why you call him the Christ why he was condemned to the cross Oh also the fact that he rose from the dead he fails to elaborate on any of this he gives no type of understanding outside of this one passage aside from this because obviously there's more important things to talk about which takes me to my next point now he also makes mention of a tribe of Christians but yet he doesn't go on to explain what exactly a Christian is in the reason that's important is because if you're familiar with the writings of Josephus in the way he talks about the Pharisees the way he talks about the Sadducees the way he talks about the scenes he goes in depth about their belief their customs he talks about everything having to do with these individuals and what exactly it is that they believe why don't you do the same for the Christians who are they and please take note that the New Testament is not written yet so this isn't something that's common knowledge already that's just being passed around Israel so we can't use that as an excuse as to why he didn't feel the need to further elaborate because it hasn't been created which takes us to the next point was Josephus a Pharisee or a Christian and really we can throw filler of Alexandria into that because people believe after all that he helps support Jesus so with that being the case why did these individuals still refer to themselves as Jews when a time period that everybody that followed Jesus called himself a Christian number four it's not referenced by any of the early church fathers you know guys like Origen who continuously mentioned Josephus and a lot of his writings yeah he doesn't make mention of this passage not once also with our ninny Asst somebody else considered to be at early church father who was heavy in the church and Christianity he never makes mention of this verse not once but Origen actually did give us something and it's the biggest cut to this entire argument that I've ever seen when we take a look at origins writings where he actually names the book specifically where we can find this exact passage not only does he not make mention of it but he lets us know something else about Josephus himself it says for in the eighteenth book of his antiquities of the Jews Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist and as promising purification to those who underwent the right now this writer although not believing in Jesus as the Christ hold on Origen just said that Josephus himself did not believe in Jesus to be the Christ but that's not what it says in Josephus own handwriting supposedly look at what Josephus calls them look at how he talks about this is a clear contradiction Origen wrote this as a Christian one of the early church fathers one of the people who was highly esteemed to be a believer in Jesus look what he wrote about Josephus because this passage did not exist during his time period this did not come to much later on this passage is not authentic Origen proved this by accident of course not knowing hundreds of years later that that passage would be added into his writings so if he did not believe him to be the Christ why would you see to say that which takes us to the last point five forgery it takes absolutely nothing more than a simple google search to look this up and to see how many historians and biblical scholars are in complete disagreement with his hell there are Christians that are in disagreement with this because it doesn't make sense anybody who's familiar with the writings of Josephus would know this now if you remember that individual we spoke about earlier Eusebius he's actually being accused by many for writing this passage because it didn't come around to the fourth century and Eusebius coincidentally died around that time period so many people believe that this is something that he left behind to try to further push Christianity and it really isn't far-fetched when you consider what it is that we read about this individual earlier about what he tried to read into fillos writings but let's move on to the next passage because that's not the only one the antiquities of the Jews book 20 chapter 9 paragraph 1 it talks about James being the brother of Jesus and it calls Jesus Christ now we have the same issue with this passage that we have with the last one he can't be important enough for you to call him the Christ and then not explain as to who it is he is and what exactly it is that he's done and it's also criticism that comes along this passage as well some people also believe that Eusebius is responsible for this but let's move on to the last one the antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter 5 paragraph 2 now in all honesty I'll draw absolutely no issue with this passage whatsoever there was a man named John who was baptizing people have no issue with that at all but here's the problem that everybody should now take with the New Testament we see that it says that Herod killed John the Baptist because he feared the influence that he had over the people but that's not at all how it goes in the New Testament in the New Testament it says the hair rod was essentially forced to kill John the Baptist in fact it was the little girl well more specifically it was the little girl's mother who wanted John the Baptist dead Hara I didn't want to do it at least that's the way the New Testament story goes so whose story is more accurate either way we're going to have an issue because what really happened and yes it is important let's not just sweep this under the rug because we need to know who's changing the story and if they changed that story what else did they change but that's pretty much all I got Lord willing that was edifying and to the next time in Israel Shalom

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

Related Post