Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[Drich]

Why would anyone mention a quelled uprising that ultimately lead to a gubernatorial power shift in the region which ultimately lead to the insurrection and destruction of the region? yes indeed that would be totally uncharastic for a historian to mention the events preceding the obliteration of jerusalem and the wholesale slaughter of it's people and culture.

This happened centuries later, how the fuck could early writers know this?

josephus (the writer/historian being discussed) wrote antiquities in 90ad the destruction of jerusalem happened in 70 ad. so looking back Jesus would have been the first sign of civil unrest. but rather than rally the jews and take back jerusalem he spoke of a different kingdom. which is why a jewish historian would mention him and all that he did. (because he could have lead the attack on the romans 30 earlier if he wanted to.) He goes on to explain the miracles as the reason why the people loved and followed him. Then uses the word Messiah which is key/how we know he was jewish history and not christian. because gentile christians have no need or call for a messiah. the picture the jews had of the messiah was one who would lead them out of captivity under roman rule. the jews were slaves to rome much like the rest of the world. So they have been praying of this comming 'savior'/messiah. 

Josephus' comment calling Christ the messiah was saying to the read the second guy whom all of the people thought was the messiah wasn't. The guy they turned over to rome, the guy that did the miracles He was the one sent by God and 'we' messed that up again.

That is the idea behind the passage written. Meaning He was god's literal physical savior.. Messiah to the jews does not mean son of God. Joe, could have seen jesus as the next david freeing the jews from oppressive rule and not the son of God.
Christian have adopted the word and made it synonymous with the son of God but the jews still haven't.

---

I'm sure dripshit thinks it is inspired by fucking God.

and I'me sure what ever nut ball conspiracy you currently are running with is the true hidden truth.

---

    In 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum. 
    For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus. 
    It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance. 
   Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost. 
    For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator. 
  Read about this discovery here! 
http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

If you click on the link there is a lnk to the various chapter of a book studying what is purposed in the above summary.

Meaning they found another writing that copied the original josephus texts.

Since the article you link to doesn't appear to either mention what this new discovery is, or link to information about it, I find your link less than useful.  The only thing from 1995 at the link you cited is a reference to an article comparing the Testimonium Flavianum to the Gospel of Luke.  Since the Gospel of Luke wasn't discovered in 1995, I can only assume you/they are referring to something else.

Do you have a link that might actually tell us about this 1995 discovery?  Because otherwise, some anonymous web doodle isn't evidence of anything.

sorry: http://www.josephus.org/testhist.htm this link contains a time line and in 1995 an observation was made..

 http://www.josephus.org/question.htm this contains a load of q&A both citing reason to doubt but more over far more legit reasons to believe.