ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ม.ค. 2021
- Skeptics often ask why contemporary historians fail to mention Jesus. The typical Christian reply is we have several who describe Jesus, notably including the first-century Jewish historian Josephus.
Here’s where hardcore skeptics will say: “Fake news! Josephus never really mentions Jesus. Of the two passages about Jesus found in Josephus, one is fake, and the other isn’t referring to Jesus at all.”
I have to say that I find this reply to be a bit odd. Even rabid critics of Christianity like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan believe that Josephus refers to Jesus. Where are these Jesus mythicists getting this stuff? In this video, I look at 5 common mythicists complaints against the genuineness of the mentions of Jesus in Josephus and why they fall short.
(Please pardon some of the audio issues)
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Blog post:
isjesusalive.com/did-early-ch...
Help support me monthly: / isjesusalive
Sources:
The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Greg Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy, amzn.to/3coLQFz
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, amzn.to/2NUWdGX
Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Robert Van Voorst, amzn.to/3pAPH6j
For a LOT more details read Tim O'Neill's excellent article: historyforatheists.com/2020/1...
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
If you're coming from GE's channel please read Tim O'Neill's in depth post before commenting. Tim is a historian and also an atheist, so it is hard to accuse him of bias.
And no trolling.
historyforatheists.com/2020/10/josephus-jesus-and-the-testimonium-flavianum/
And
historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
Wait, what do you mean about Godless Engineer? Did he say something about Josephus' comment being faked?
but easily proven wrong!
@@ghostriders_1 The Testimonium is fake. It's an insertion by the 3rd century bishop Esebius. AND it SHOWS!! What? Josephus spends chapters upon chapters going through all the machinations and the groups during this period.. then gets to this chapter.. mentions PIlate and then this stupid blurb about Jesus and says.. he.. was... the .. Christ (Messiah).. then goes back to the Herodians and other factions of the period NEVER to mention Jesus again. EVER. Neither in his PREVIOUS works.. nor in HIS LATER works! I mean, if he believed Jesus was the Messiah.. then why did Josephus never mention this anywhere else? Also, so ingratiated was Josephus with the Flavius family that he became their family "historian" (read: Publicist/Lackey) and they conferred on him the family name! Also Josephus' works which were translated into Arabic PRIOR to the 3rd century do NOT contain the Testimonium.. so there's that. But even IF he did mention Jesus.. so what? It doesn't prove ANY of the claims of the NT were/are true, that the xian religion is true or that the claims made by xians about his divinity, mission, purpose, yadda yadda yadda are true. The fact is there is NO contemporaneous historian who wrote about HIM (not the movement, but HIM). Philo of Alexandria would have been the contemporaneous historian (okay, he was more of a philosopher than historian...) and he never MENTIONS him. And before people get in a tizzy about Tactius.. he wrote about the MOVEMENT and about the fact that they rallied around a crucified guy.. not about the guy at all. And one doesn't need a historical figure to have a HUGE cult following.. think Apollo, Hercules, Perseus, Harry Potter, Batman, Spiderman..
@@creativewriter3887 are you confusing me with somebody else? I know all of this & find it persuasive.
@@ghostriders_1 I may have.. SORRY
He mentions John the Baptist as well. The death of Herod Agrippa I is mentioned. Tacitus mentions Pontius Pilate and Jesus.
People have no problem believing Josephus was real, but when it comes to Jesus Christ its to difficult.
Christ is a religious figure, so that means he must not be real. Why? Because naturalism.
Because Josephus doesnt claim to be a miracle worker. That is why Jesus is not real. The Jesus that did not do miracles is real
Um.. Jesus never wrote anything, except that little thingy in the sand... whereas Josephus wrote FOUR massive multi-volume histories, was a turn-coat general during the Jewish War and became the Flavius family's sandal-licking lackey/historian/publicist. He wrote a lot. And what's ironic is that Jews didn't preserve Josephus (because they viewed him as a traitor and saw that he was foremost the Flavius family's publicist). non-Jews, philo-Jews, Xians did. And it was the xians who inserted that blurb in the 3rd century about Jesus.. never mind that he's not mentioned anywhere else in "Antiquities/the Jewish War" or in any OTHER works by Josephus BEFORE and AFTER this work.
I doubt the existence of Josephus. And Caesar, while I’m at it!
He most likely existed. That’s it. Why would anyone think he was divine? He was probably a liberal rabbi who upset the Pharisees and blundered into his own execution.
" No real jews would say these things "... except James, Peter, John, Jude, Timothy, Matthew, Mark, and several thousand unnamed jews who believed in Jesus.
With a name like that, you should be a 3rd string quarterback 😉
@@TestifyApologetics
Lol ! But... i am a third string quarterback. 🤕
@@HistoryandReviews
Lol... ok whatever.
@@HistoryandReviews there’s not real evidence for that view though.
That is was Matthew a disciple of Jesus, Mark a companion to Peter and wrote down his account, Luke a companion to Paul and the disciples and John a disciple of Jesus.
These are confirmed by the early church fathers. There are no disagreement on who wrote the gospels, each manuscript has the names of the author on them.
Josephus wasn't Christian. He was a court historian to the Flavian Emperors. Politically he pushed hard for the idea that Emperor Vespasian was chosen by God to rule Palestine, and that his fellow Jews should basically accept Vespasian as the Messiah. For him to call a peasant preacher the Messiah in a little historical aside is unthinkable. It's a very obvious addition/modification by a later Christian scribe.
Your youtube channel has recently become my all-time favorite because of the incredible amount of time and research you put into each video. I have been reading mythicist like Richard Carrier and having a Christian youtube channel that can bat down his claims in five minutes has truly been a gift from God. Thank you and keep up the great work!
Thanks! That's real encouraging!
What claims were batted down? The only part of the writing that wasn't added later(fake) was clearly talking about a different Jesus and James. Jesus wasn't made high priest, and James's death is much different in Acts. Nothing about the story is even remotely close except the names, and it is explained who that person is in the dang book. Jesus of Damneus. Why do you theists flat out lie to make your BS sound true? The only thing in the entire text that can not be absolutely proven as either false or lies is the sentence "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus" That is the ONLY line that scholars agree on. The civil war comparison is flat out stupid. Early Christians would have given anything to have something like this as evidence if it were real, and would have been talked about NON STOP. In addition, no one ever questioned the existence of the emancipation proclamation, so who cares if Grant talked about it or not. This is a terrible, terrible example.
@@CC-jv4br the James in the Acts account is a different James. Not Jesus’ brother.
@@farmercraig6080 think you should go reread Acts
From wiki:
@@CC-jv4br No in Josephus account he is talking of Jesus brother, And in Acts, Luke is talking about James the brother of John. Acts 12:1-3 "About that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict and oppress and torment some who belonged to the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with a sword; 3 And when he saw that it was pleasing to the Jews, he proceeded further and arrested Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread [the Passover week]."
Good analysis, but you forget one other point. Jerome, writing in the late 4th century, also cites the Testimonium Flavianum in his "On Illustrious Men." Thus, there is no way that the Testimonium Flavianum can be a medieval forgery.
Do you mean the "Antiquities" as written originally in Greek?
Wait people actually believe Jesus didn't exist? That's just silly, he obviously existed, the miracles may be called into question but certainly not his existence
I think it also needs to be said that early apologists didn't try to gather sources to prove Jesus EXISTED, only that he was the Messiah and rose from the dead. That he never existed wasn't a charge early ancient critics levied against the church... and that they didn't really should settle the matter.
If an argument only becomes convenient because the passing of time makes it easy to pretend the past didn't happen (the existence of Jesus) then the argument isn't one that has a lot of merit.
Exactly this ! His existence and cruxifiction was not a debate in antiquity.
Only modern pseudo intellectual mythicists deny this
@@BradBrassman name 1 that actually fits that description.
It's only natural for someone to assume that people in the past thought along the same lines as they do today, even if not very logical. Mythicists likewise assume that Christians apologists were defending or trying to prove Jesus's existence as a historical person because they do that today, or that Christian scribes forged passages into Josephus for that reason simply because modern Christians use that same passage... _for that reason._
It might not occur to them that Jesus's existence was not a topic of debate, or that they haven't any like-minded mythicists in ancient times.
@@BradBrassman There really isn't. There have been such claims by conspiracy theorists(like the infamous "Zeitgeist" video 10 or so years ago)and fringe pop history theorists, but no one has been able to produce any evidence of such, and these claims have been well refuted by a multitude of historians and others.
@@histguy101 right, the additions to Josephus are clearly the out of place biased editorializing of Jesus as messiah in the mouth of a non-Christian jew. It doesn't fit.
But that he existed at all and is mentioned by him, sans worshipful commentary, should should expected. The Jewish rabbinical writings even mention Jesus and justify his death as the death of a sorcerer... this admits both to his existence and to his role as a miracle working iconoclast and admits he was executed under controversial circumstances. All while trying to spin these facts in an opposite polemic... why not just say he didn't exist?
Thank you for this channel, i found you through a cross examined blog. Never stop these vids man, these are so informative
Im here because of your meme shared by elephant.
Great channel by the way
Lol. Thanks. Some memes just make themselves.
elephant? you mean "the" Elephant Philosophy?
Dude, bravo. Seriously, this is an amazingly in-depth and informative explanation of this debate. Well done, keep it up 👍🏼
Great video! Keep up the good work!
3:30 also another thing to point out this argument doesn’t make any sense either because we have absolutely no evidence of Jesus mythicism before the 1800s, and also it wouldn’t have made any sense for them to have to quote a non-Christian source to support their view that Jesus existed, none of the people that Origen or Tertullian we’re dealing with disputed that Jesus existed so it would make absolutely no sense for them to use a non-Christian source to prove that when it was not in dispute.
*mythicism not mysticism, Christianity has a deep tradition mysticisim (Holy Mysteries). Mythicism denies Christ's existence which is ridiculous and not even a mainstream held belief and is almost-exclusively held by people who are wilfully ignorant/stupid or hate God.
Thank you for sharing this.
So thankful for all your videos. They don’t waste time getting down to the point. But they also are detailed enough to deliver all the relevant information.
Incredibly helpful for anyone trying to grow in understanding of apologetics and the reasons for our faith.
Just started your Historial Reliability of the Gospels playlist 😊 Going to go through it while meal prepping 😋
Glad you find it helpful. I have so many more video ideas to add to that playlist, it's definitely still a work in progress!
Glad you're meal prepping because you must take this with a grain of salt.
@@Control_alt_delete You're
@@TestifyApologetics It's bullshit mythris
Sara 2 trillion galaxies,not stars,galaxies! THINK! USE YOUR BRAIN!!!?
You can see how brainwashed you are in your picture!
The church fathers didn't see any apologetic value in Josephus's note about Jesus because they didn't see any reason to defend the fact that Jesus actually existed.
Josephus wrote this in 93 AD. It proves nothing.
@teastrainer3604 He wrote that in 93AD, so his uncles probably told him the story of how they witnessed the crucifixion of a pacifist claiming to be the "Messiah." Josephus was a HISTORIAN, not an eye-witness!
Your statement proves nothing
The biggest question you have to ask yourself is, where would ancient historians get information about Jesus? Either they saw Him themselves (in which case they'd be Christians and their writings dismissed as religious propaganda), and even among non-Christians this seems to have been an affair limited, among the educated, to the Jewish high priests and the Roman officials, and the earliest Christians. If these historians who didn't meet Jesus nonetheless got information about Jesus, it would have to be from other sources. Josephus never met Herod Archelaus, and nobody else records the slaughter in the Temple at Passover, yet nobody claims this event was fabricated or that Archelaus was a myth.
There are no accounts, historian or otherwise, of anyone who ever directly met Jesus.
@@protercool8474 Except there are.
@@SamAdamsGhost From whom? Give me the name of one author who wrote of his or her meeting with Jesus Christ
@@protercool8474Matthew, Peter through Mark, and John.
@@SamAdamsGhost not a one of those is an Author, those are the names of the books. We don't know who wrote them, but we do know that 3 out of 4 authors were definitely not contemporary with Jesus. And the last? A single unknown author writing of God walking the earth, seems pretty made up to me. No religious historian takes the gospels as gospel.
Given the number of those named Jesus in Josephus hard to determine which one in particular is being referred to
Can I get a link to the Arabic manuscript?
Lady af
Hi Erik do you have anything on the claim Atheists make that Josephus didn’t mention King Herod The Great ordering the killing of every baby boy even though he wrote about Herod? Thx
Good question! I wrote about the topic here:
isjesusalive.com/historical-truth-or-holy-fiction-did-herod-really-order-the-massacre-of-the-innocents-or-did-matthew-just-make-up-a-story/
Hope it helps. I'd like to make it into a video someday.
Herod the Great was not a Hebrew, and some of his subjects claimed he wasn't a Jew. He was Idumean and had been supported to the throne by the Romans as a loyal buffer state with Parthia. Thus, Josephus could have portrayed him quite badly, yet seems to have been fairly objective. But had Herod commanded the murder of every boy of two years and younger in Bethlehem, I think Josephus would have noted it, given his description of the death of John the Baptist. And note, Herod did not command the killing of boys within Judea, only those within Bethlehem, which might have amounted to less than a hundred. Bad, yes, but in the scheme of things Josephus was writing about, perhaps not notable.
What would you say to people who claim there are no contemporary sources of Jesus therefore he didn’t exist?
Why would we expect them to have? Jesus was a rabbi teaching in a backwater province of the Roman empire. Also, much of what we have from history had been lost. Also, 4 Gospels is actually a lot.
@@TestifyApologetics, That’s what I always say!
Almost no one on the planet dates them that late. The scholarly consensus puts Mark 65 to 70. Matthew 80 to 85. Same for Luke. John is 90. I think there are good arguments for early dating. Maurice Casey is an atheist NT scholar and he dated Mark to the 40s. Also they were quoted by Ignatius and Polycarp, showing they were in use. Paul quoted them too, which is even earlier.
isjesusalive.com/13-good-historical-reasons-for-the-early-dating-of-the-gospels/
@@TestifyApologetics, Yeah almost no one ever dated the Gospels to early to late second century that’s just wild. But I believe that the Gospels are early compositions. I believe Mark was written 57-60AD around that time, Luke written around 56-63AD, Matthew around that time as well and John 66-96AD.
There actually may be contemporary sources of Jesus. It is still possible that Pilate sent a report to Rome about Jesus after the crucifixion. Justin Martyr and Tertullian both mention a report that Pilate sent to Tiberius about Jesus.
Of course, I'm not saying it's probable, but certainly possible.
Great video!!!! Thank you. Its funny how people believe in Ragnarok the viking, however, people don't believe in jesus. What are people scared of?
What is even stranger is people believing in simulation theory, and believing that this world isn't even real. But they can't believe in God..
Hello sir, does an account have to be "on the spot" for it to be considered as contemporary or does not have to be, but recent.
The more recent the better, obviously. Josephus is good because he is one of our main sources for 1st century Jewish events. For us to trust him on the history of say, the Herods or Annas' family but assume what he tells us Jesus is wrong seems to be using a double standard.
Josephus, like Tacitus, mentioned that some locals followed a Rabbi. That's all they said about him.
Thank you for sharing this. I stumbled upon this video by typing "Josephus" in the search bar. I have been struggling with Josephus and his authenticity because he fails to bring up the Golden Calf. Why do you think this might have happened?
Glad you found it helpful. I haven't heard of the whole Golden Calf controversy other than a paper I was able to find on the topic which I can't get access to. Can you give me a short breakdown on the problem?
@@TestifyApologetics So there isn't much I can say about it. The only thing that I can say with certainty is that he doesn't bring it up in his Antiquities. I speculate now that I have read something in Story of the Jews Volume 1 by Simon Schama that since his audience was Roman that he didn't want to cause any additional issues. However I don't really know how omitting this would cause any issues per se. If you find anything more out I would love to hear what you have come across!
@@TestifyApologetics What is the paper's name?
The audience Josephus was shooting at were the Greeks and Romans, some of whom denied that the Jews were ever civilized. Josephus wrote to, first, show that the Jews were civilized, and two, had been civilized for at least 500 years before the Romans and slightly before the first written copies of the Iliad and Odyssey. He was writing a social and political history, not a religious one. He knew well enough that the Greeks and Romans thought the Jewish religion was somewhat odd.
The skeptic assertion that the TF was a forgery created by Eusebius is untenable for the following reasons:
1) Eusebius was the historian that was commissioned by Constantine to write down church history. As an official Roman sponsored historian, he would not fabricate passages, especially passages where Josephus' works can cross checked by any number of Roman libraries that would still have extant copies.
2) The TF was alluded to by Origen in 240 AD. He does not quote it in full and mentions that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
3) No Roman critic of Christianity ever doubted the existence of Jesus in their critiques of Christianity in the 2nd or 3rd centuries so no Church Father needed to mention the TF as a defense in their written materials. It was only after the Roman Empire legalized Christianity and protected it that the Church Fathers (Eusebius and Jerome) started to quote the TF in full.
4) Eusebius quotes the TF in full three times. Two in works that were of apologetics. Any critic of the TF could go to any sizable Roman library at the time and confirm (or refute) Eusebius' quotation of the TF. Given that Eusebius was a commissioned writer of Church history, an outright forgery would have been impossible. Eusebius, and other Christian writers could not afford the loss of credibility if they simply forged the TF in full. The infrastructure of Roman libraries were still in existence in the 4th century throughout the Roman Empire.
5) Jerome in the later 4th century quotes a Latin version of TF where it's nearly identical to Eusebius' Greek version, other than the part where "[Jesus] was the Messiah" can be interpreted to "[Jesus] was called the Messiah." This quote by Jerome might be closer to the original and would coincide with what Origen wrote in 240 AD.
6) This much attestation by both Eusebius and Jerome in a time where the Roman Empire's library system was still intact make a forgery impossible, particularly in an age where Christianity received Empire wide tolerance, but still had a lot of pagan opposition and skepticism. Eusebius and Jerome's use of the TF could easily be refuted by critics if it was a pure invention and this would lead to a loss of credibility for not only Eusebius or Jerome, but for any Emperor who wished to be a patron of Christianity. The risks and possible loss of credibility were powerful motivators to not fabricate complete passages during the existence of the Roman Empire and its academic infrastructure, which was still intact in the 4th century.
It has already been shown that Eusebius left out or changed things that didn't run with the Church's version of history. He glossed over the differences between Paul, Peter and James. Ignored how the Acts of the Apostles is contrary to what Paul himself wrote in his Epistles, ignored the forgery of the "Pastoral Epistles", skipped over the importance of women to the early Church, so important, Paul's unmodified Epistle to the Romans mentions several by name, even calling one an "apostle". There is a lot of Christian scripture that got "lost" along the way as the proto-orthodox who won the battles for the heart of Christianity became the orthodoxy. Then there is the claim that the bishop of Roman was the head of the Church, when in fact, leadership was shared among the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Damascus. Constantine didn't care about the historical accuracy of the Church and had no input or even cared about the writings by Eusebius. He wasn't a scholar. And no Roman governor or government employee was going to look very close at Christian scripture and writings when the Emperor was favoring the Christians, who won out in the end after the death of Julian the Apostate. He had named Christianity as a legal Roman religion, which made the Christian priests government employees like the pagan priests.
I really like that your videos are under 10minutes. Other channels need like 30 minutes to 1hour to make the same claims. Christians need this Josephus passage to be true because there is almost nothing else (which in itself is telling). That's why they bend backwards to make the text fit. If you approach it from a perspective whether it is probable (not possible!) that Josephus wrote in flying colors about Jesus Christ the Messiah - then it is a hard sell.
Don’t forget Tacitus and the early creed.
@@Nameless-pt6oj you mean Tacitus’ Chrestians or that he got some information from Pliny.? Well, doesn’t matter, both statements only put Christians/Chrestians on the map and have nothing to do with a historical Jesus. Even Bible scholars avoid Tacitus nowadays.
I like the long form videos
A very solid exposition!
He was there - and for a much longer time than people knew or still know…
I'm not a Christian but I do find the mythicist arguments against the testimonium flavium ridiculous, although they rarely mentioned the second mention along with James and the mention of John the Baptist. The second mention refers back to the first. Certainly the wording of the original Greek has changed over the centuries of copying. But there's actually nothing wrong with Josephus mentioning christ is not actually a problem. Not all Jews believed that the messiah was coming, that's moreso a later Christian development. Christos to a Roman and Greek audience just meant the smeared, literally. Josephus mentions multiple Jesus' throughout his works so this one is nicknamed christos. Also the antiquities is long and very very boring. It's not inconceivable that no Christian scholar had even read through all the way to find the brief mention. It's not like today where you can just search for terms in a giant index, these scrolls had to be found in a library, unrolled and then studied and they had no spaces between words...
But which one?
1:47
"No real Jew would have said these things about Jesus"
*1st century Messianic Jews and modern-day Messianic Jews has entered the chat*
His passage on John the Baptist is huge as well. It confirms the basic gist of what the Gospels say while differing enough to establish its independency from Christian tradition.
Just because a book might have some truths that doesn't mean all claims in the book are true. If someone wrote that Bill Clinton was the president of the United States and he walked on water some of that sentence is true and some of it is not. The same holds true of John the Baptist. Josephus being born almost 40 years AFTER the supposed events of Jesus and John is only relating what he heard not what he witnessed . Just because there were Jews before the myth of Jesus does not make everything the Jews claim is real as well. There is absolutely no evidence the Jews wandered for 40 years in the dessert and no reason to believe it possible or probable. The dessert simply is not that big to remain hidden . There is also no reason to believe the Jews were ever held as slaves in Egypt. One thing that is universally common when slavery is present is that both slave and holder pick up and each others language or words to some degree. There are no Egyption words in the Hebrew language and no Hebrew words in the Egyption language. Again the most problematic realilty for the claim that Jesus actually existed is the fact we still have the "movement " started by John the Baptist still existing with the people calling themselves the Mandeans located in Ethiopia. They trace their beliefs and lineage (not genetic) directly to John the Baptist. If Jesus actually existed , died and was resurrected the members of the baptist movement should have disbanded. They did not.
@@colinmatts he never said that. What he meant is that ancient historians such as Josephus show that the gospel writers get dozens and dozens of facts right with people, places, events, etc. So we can be pretty confident that they told other things right about the divine attributes of Christ that is not 100% provable but not disprovable either.
It doesn't confirm anything whatsoever except that rumors were spread in the first century AD
Ok, let's say the red print IS doctored. The remaining black print still proves Christ the man as Josephus CLEARLY mentions Jesus "a wise man and one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher. He won over many Jews and Greeks"
You forget, the very title of "Christ" is divine in Greek. Not as a wise man, a divine being as depicted in John. Josephus would never, either as a apostate pagan or a returned Jew make such a claim. Not even the claim of a semi-divine Messiah as made by Matthew and Luke.
Can you imagine if Josephus wasn't just a historian, but would go around as a musician in his offtime?
Josephus, the inventor of rap, and going by the name of Flavor Flavius.
The only drawback is if the gold chains that he wore weren't already heavy enough,
on that chain he wore a sundial as well.
"yeahh Boyyy!"
I know, I'm stupid,...
but it's funny right?
Lmaooooo
In Roman society it was traditional for a freed slave to adopt the family name of his ex-master. With Josephus that was the Emperor Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Flavius and the flavian dynasty is one of the most famous names in history.
Thanks!!
The later, doctored version does.
What about John Meier’s version of the TF?
Meier's version seems totally legit to me. It's actually in the linked blog post in the description.
The TF is a forgery, but Josephus certainly wrote about Jesus. He is The Egyptian. ✝️
The irony is, that there's likely more testimony for the existence of Jesus Christ than for some of the other ancient figures that the sceptics believe existed. But then, consistency is not one of their strengths!
Good point.
All we can do is give that reasonable defense, and the early followers of Jesus Christ faced the exact same challenge.
We are, however, despite access to in depth information on - everything, really - living in the post Enlightenment; the case for Christ has never been better - and yet Christianity has become a marginal phenomenon in my part of the world - Northern Protestant Europe.
Erik is a blessing, though; he fights the good fight. Hasn't given up, and neither will I.
Kind regards Kim
The problem is the testimony comes from the church community. Jesus was Jewish. Jews don't believe in heaven or hell, the devil, or demons yet in the gospels Jesus talks to the devil, casts out demons and says you must believe in him to get to heaven. This Jesus seems to come from a pagan background.
@@paullkaplan4140, try some basic research, for example the JEWISH Torah (old testament). Jesus was not saying anything they hadn't heard before.
There is absolutely NO testimony from anything outside of the bible and other church works. None nada no way. Find something , PLEEEZZZE!
@@kimjensen8207 Using the case for Christ is the very reason it is doubtful he actually lived. Using your bible and taking it court ALL FOUR GOSPELS disagree on the details of the crucifixion. Read it for yourself on how the testimony is different. As for the rest of the bible it is full of errors and contradictions. Do you remember in school and at some point you had a textbook where an error was found? After that the entire textbook was suspect.
Yeah, but in all Arab sources, that were translated from the original Greek manuscripts ,these passages are gone. It is widely accepted among historians that all Latin versions of Josephus are based on Christian rewritings that were so embarrassed that Josephus didn't even notice Jesus and his followers that he didn't mention them (while lengthily mentioning the very obscure, and bizarre sect of the Essense).
Furthermore, Josephus describes himself as a pharisee and therefore it is unlikely that he would say that Jesus was the messiah. It is 100% a Christian forgery.
Josephus as a Jew would have been familiar with the two powers in heaven teaching as a non-heresy within the second temple period. The disputed red text like, "if indeed one ought to call him a man" would make sense and the oddness of that choice of words would only seem that way today. I have to suspect that after thousands of years redefining monotheism, "Our Lord is one" also may not imply what monotheists think it does today.
I'm thinking that I agree. In the Shema prayer, the word Hebrews use is "Echad".
Our Lord is One
Adonai Echad
That word is often used to symbolize unity. Like in marriage, communities, military, and yes divinity.
If you read the way Josephus describes the other little Jewish cults of the time, the passage about the Chrisitans seems incredibly out of place. It's been obviously tampered with.
The profession of faith by a Jew since the time of Moses is that there is only ONE God and he is God. The claim of divinity in John and the word "Christ" in Greek is what caused the irrevocable split between Christianity and Judaism in the 90s CE, when Christians were forbidden access to the synagogues and cursed.
Also a Chinese leader / Pharaoh wrote about Jesus
Josephus's organization was horrific by modern standards, and I'm sure you could find hundreds of passages that seem "out of place" in his writings. That's far from proving they were all forged.
Yesterday my newspaper mentioned Barbie and Ken.
It’s obvious that it’s a stoic being described…..VIRTUE/WISEMAN and GOOD CONDUCT are all used as thematic in stoicism
Obvious? You think it is that strong?
@@TestifyApologetics The STOICISM beliefs in physical sacrifice to preserve honor is also the obvious reason why one of his disciples was made to resemble JESUS and crucified. When the REAL JESUS continued preaching 3 days after, it gave the appearance that he arose from the dead 💀 since it was alleged that he was publicly crucified. This was by design…..HE WAS INDO/EUROPEAN descent so he would have been darker in skin complexion than the Greek/Roman philosophers
That's exactly why he wrote Mariamne of Herod account
If I'm not mistaken since I own a book which is the collective works of Josephus it is noted that Josephus was well aware of John the Baptist and may very well have been a follower of John the Baptist, and as everyone knows John the Baptist was the one who told everyone that Jesus was the Messiah.
Until there is an older copy of the Antiquities of the Jews discovered I think people having the assumptions that Josephus would not describe Jesus as a miracle worker or as Jesus the Christ is pretty much a projection of their own skepticism rather than a healthy assumption. It may very well be the case that Josephus did indeed call Jesus the Christ and that Jesus was a miracle worker.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
Josephus was a Pharisee, and would never have and didn't identify himself as a follower of John the Baptist. He used the story as one of the ways to show that Herod, who was an Idumean, was not a Hebrew or a Jew in reality, instead a cruel and arbitrary ruler. Josephus became apostate right after Vespasian left for Rome and remained a pagan until late in his life when he returned to Judaism in the 80s CE.
@@michaelsnyder3871
According to Josephus's account of his own life he was a follower of a man called "Bannus" and by all accounts this "Bannus" was a follower of John The Baptist who (as stated before) proclaimed Jesus Christ Almighty God was the Messiah. Josephus described "Bannus" in this way:
"Bannus, lived in desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in the cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things and continued with him three years."
Josephus was 19 at the end of this three year living situation with Bannus. In Josephus's Antiquities he talks about how many felt Herod's army lost because of the death of John The Baptist, and later on talks about many people believing calamities came upon Israel because of the death of James the brother of Jesus, both events being direct punishments from Father Jehovah.
Furthermore Josephus's phrases, commands to his soldiers, etc are very similar to things John The Baptist and Jesus Christ Almighty God said, so it makes one question whether he was a Christian like Nicodemus (also a Pharisee) or at the very least was a follower of John The Baptist, or because of his experiences with men like "Bannus" that he had sympathy or compassion or tolerance of Christians unlike his fellow Pharisees.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
Strange, no mention of the saints rising from the grave and wandering around Jerusalem? Matthew 27: 51-53
Would you really expect this to be in an overview of the most important aspects of Jewish history? The resurrections of a few Jewish persons could have (even at the time) been brushed off as a myth. Even today, if 10 people in one town illegedly "came to life," our history books wouldn't mention it!
So that's not only an argument from silence, but we should expect Josephus to be silent on this issue.
Joshephus was adopted into the flavian roman family (hence his second name)
To write in all prophecies as complete and create the caesars into the messiah via allegory stories.
To be digested by the Jews as true.
Why would the romans create a messiah that tells people to spread this religion to the whole world including Rome writting in Greek to make it more easy to understand, but still torture and kill the christians and only accept christianity 2 or 3 centuries later?
@@vecturhoff7502 yes. 100 percent. They created a messiah to trick the Jews into thinking the messiah had come. When in reality it was caesar they were presented.
As for spreading around the vast empire. Most definitely. They can now rule a vast empire with words and thoughts alone.
@@vecturhoff7502 the Jews were the Romans biggest enemies.
Judea fell exactly like the bible prophecies. 3 walls of army seiged them for weeks.
It was prophecies, it was allegories.
@@vecturhoff7502 why would the capital of Christianity be in Italy. Far far away from anything biblical? Because they invented that, to rule and govern their empire. Especially making judea crumble.
It wasn't until 398ad (so 400 years after the supposed death) that Constantine the second made it punishable by death, to not conform to Christianity. Was only then it exploded over the next 1000 years. Up until 1900's, and then it started it's decline.
When people were no longer cast out of society, burnt and labeled as witches or murdered for not conforming.
Says alot about why it grew.
@@vecturhoff7502 in the next 50 years it'll will be third in the global audit of religious beliefs or no belief
Islam will be number 1, only due to higher birth rates
No beliefs will be second.
What reason/s is there for Josephus not being a Messianic Jew??
Nicodemus was a devout Jew yet acknowledged Jesus is the Messiah.
Joseph of Arimathea -a member of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus! did a noble thing for Jesus.
'Testify' has elsewhere effectively shown: "Christian copying doesn't equal Christian editing".
The gospel went to the Jews first...
Seems to me what Jo wrote had all the signs of a fledgling Messianic Christian ....what evidence do we have that he isn't?
A Messianic Jew wouldn't have become apostate, sacrificing to the Roman gods and the Imperator. Josephus became apostate soon after meeting Vespasian and returned to Judaism in his late life after having written the "Antiquities".
Trying to wrap my pea sized brain around this is nearly giving me a headache
The existence of jesus has never been in question in the same way the existence of the sun that rises everyday. Why all this debate on jesus existence all of a sudden. 🤔
Using Tacitus to “prove” the existence of Jesus is fundamentally misusing what Tacitus was writing about.
The more important thing, however, is that Tacitus does not say one single thing about the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Testify of Testify...serving the lord and confounding those who are against he faith!
Allah Akbar! Same thing.
Yeah. Skeptic here. And I'm a Skeptic because of these reasons
1: the writing styles of the time of the letter you are referring to is not in line with the style of the writing of the subject matter. It appears to be a later edited edition.
2: until the recent times, it was considered fake by almost all 'scholars. Not the 4th century, but the 1800s
2, Josephus is Jewish, under Roman rule and care. It would have been suicide to write anything about a rebellious person in a good way.
At the time, christ was not something that anyone would use for a failed messiah, nor use the Greek word to describe him.
4. Obviously it's a Christian writing edit, as,there are no collaborative writing for this topic.
5. Christianity is opposite of the teaching of the jew, which Jesus was if he existed.
Josephus was captured in the Roman-Jewish war. He didnt defect. They used him as a translater and he went on to create the new testament.
Yeah okay bud
Jo said, if you could call Jesus a man, Jesus was the Word, only well healed knew this so I ask, what is the original Word?
Barring a few dishonest Christian editors? I think that answers the broader story.
Jesus is mentioned in contemporary census records. He did exist. He does.
Sorry, wrong again. Judea did not become a part of the province of Syria to around 6 CE. At that time, only Roman citizens would have been submitted to a census. The non-Romans would have been enumerated and a tribute fixed upon the local leaders.
How did Josephus know about Jesus in the first place?
Josephus was born in Jerusalem in AD 37, which is 4 years after the most likely date for the crucifixion. He would have been familiar with the growing Christian movement there, lead by James. And by the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, at least 3 of the 4 gospels (probably all four) had been written.
@@onvavoir78 but according to catholics james was not jesus' biological brother, and josephus' passage doesn't prove that jesus was god or the resurrection, it can maybe be presented as evidence that some people believed that there was a guy named jesus and not more than that + on top of that, many scholars believe that at least some of the passage was a forgery. i never hear anyone in the mythicist vs historicist debates quoting josephus... they always go to paul
you do realize this is from a man of roman descent who was very close with the story right? making these things very easy to make up & helpful for the roman gov & the growing christianity at the time to back
this is tin foil hat
@@TestifyApologetics look into the apostles/disciples and what they actually followed before going into christianity, the proof is all there with sun worship, paul & constantine are the most blatant as well w the catholic church & their “secret” library.. sun worship is a great way for control
richard carrier has a point when he says that the gospels copied from josephus, there are many similarities
lol
Yes, Josephus Really Mentions Tucker Carlson
Even pontius pilate mentions the rabbi to his reports on caesar 😂😂😂
But does Josephus mention the historical Paul? Or that Paul wrote letters to the churches? Or that Paul persecuted Christians? Or King Arestas in Damascus? Or the presence of Christians in Judea, Galilee and Syria? Does anyone mention these? Did Paul even Exist?
I don't think much of any scholars don't think he's real
The Apostles mentions Paul
Don't you get it ? All the references to Jesus by Josephus or Roman Historians must be interpolations or nythicism fails. What about the claim that no contemporary historian mentions Jesus ? Well, they don't mention the High Priest, the most inmportant person in the land, so I guess that proves he did not exist.
Wrong. Go back and read the passages referring to Herod the Great and the building of the Second Temple. And Josephus was writing a history of the Hebrews not of Judaism.
@@michaelsnyder3871: Exactly what am I wrong about? And what is the title of his book again ?
He should?! He wrote it.
The documents of Josephus does give mention of Jesus of Nazareth, and another mention of Jesus called the Christ. Everyone reading this, however, must remember a very important aspect of ancient documents. The originals do NOT exist. What has come down to the present are hand written copies of the original. They did not have xerox machines. Does anyone know how many scribes over how many decades were involved in rewriting the documents. . . . It had better occur to all readers that are interested in truth, that a scribe rewriting a manuscript can insert some new words and wording when ever they do the copy. The historian is super concerned about this issue of veracity and accuracy. I am.
The statement about Jesus is an add in. It is totally out of character for Josephus.
Richard Carrier watching this: 😡
The mention is very suspect. What historian would call Jesus a messiah? Clear manipulation of historical records by the catholic church.
Calling Josephus a contemorary of Jesus is like calling me (born 1959) a contemporary of Gen. William Sherman (died 1891).
How so Josephus was born 4 years after Jesus death
You are crazy history says he was born 4 years after his death thats pretty close
@@carefullychristian8657 Josephus was forty years old at least when he wrote the "Antiquities". That puts him nearly on line with Matthew and Luke, earlier than John but after Mark (Marcus). None of the Gospels was written by an eyewitness.
What this does doesn’t go into enough is the very important detail that like most writings about Jesus, this was also written well after his death and based on passed verbal stories . Stories that those who wrote it knew they would have a major effect on the religion itself ! How anyone can call that reliable is either being knowingly disingenuous, or ignorant to the common sense point! Not impossible, just unreliable. Something Bart Ehrman also talks about
Yeah, these references by Josephus, if they are authentic, are made at the same time the gospels are being written. A generation or so after Jesus' death.
I am sure you will then accept Bart Erhman's own research would then be as equally invalid givennit was written 2000 uears later?
@@kiwisaram9373Thank you for demonstrating an actual understanding of logic!
It's crazy that none of these people realize that mythicism concerning Jesus is the result of modern scholars studying what genuinely are "copies of copies of copies of copies." Those who had the originals never questioned Christ's existence, so why should we?
Bro those text you highlighted are the most significant part of those are fake what are we even talking about… plus I wouldn’t trust a text that’s been half faked to be half real
In THE JEWISH WAR, Josephus clearly said Vespasian was the Messiah.
Put there by medieval scribe.
Josephus thought Vespesian was the Messiah. I wonder if he placed Jesus under the Vespesian family in terms of Meesianic creed. When Josephus describes the events in Jewish Wars and you have Rebels like Eleazar, Simon and John, there does not seem to be any of Jesus’ followers anywhere in this conflict and these followers would have been significant since their goals and values were in direct contradiction to he vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem and they wouldnhave not been well recieved. The Christian persecution would have been done by Jews not by Romans. I think the Testimonium Flavianum was written by Josephus to make Jews believe in Jesus which in the Gospels predicts that Titus Vespesian (Son of Man) would come and encircle Jesrusalemnwith a wall and raize the Temple. I still think this reference is fictional, but providing historical basis for the Jesus character to provide the oracle about Titus coming over and destroying the Temple. What Jew could read this and not conclude that God has switched sides with the Romans? Josephus reference doesnt prove Jesus, it only proves that Josephus wanted Jews to believe that the prophet that predicted Titus arrival was a real man but beneath Titus
Titus and Vespasian, and later Domitian were Josephus's patrons. They set him up in Rome and paid him a salary. They were also still in power when he was writing. There are Panegyric elements in his writings about Vespasian in Jewish Wars because that's just what you've got to do in Josephus's shoes.
Josephus's passages about Jesus are in his later works, after the death of Vespasian, Titus, and possibly even Domitian. They're in the latter sections of "Antiquities," and he's believed to have lived until 100-110.
If Josephus wanted Jews to believe in Jesus, he would certainly have spent a lot more time writing about him than an off hand paragraph, and while his "Wars" was for Jews and Greeks/Romans, his "Antiquities" was for Greeks/Romans.
Jesus said he wasn't a political messiah? He intimated he was king of the Jews, which was disturbing the peace with the local Jews. He turned over the tables in the temple. These are the things that got him crucified. Jesus predicted to some of his followers that he would return in their lifetimes ... but didn't which equates him as a failed messiah. Josephus was a Jewish historian who sided with the Romans during the Jewish War so there is little wonder he didn't mention Jesus. The failed messiahs mentioned are in his history because they failed. The Testimonium just screams interpolation.
As in many parts of the Bible, there were forgeries pretty much everywhere and in many manuscripts. Read about Galeno’s story. 7 of Pablo’s “epistles” we’re not written by the same author. The gospels embellishing Jesus’ life more and more as time passed. Even the Old Testament has a lot of forgeries.
Now, it is very well known to scholars that the way the part written in about Jesus in Josephus’ book, it is not his style of writing. It is too casual when Josephus’ stile is much more precise with details, glaringly missing in those paragraphs. Obviously a forgery.
You really need to read scholars’ books, instead of listening to apologists if you really want to know the truth.
Now, did a man called Jesus existed? Probably but the stories about him are not true.
Right, neither are the ones written about Julius Caesar 🙄
Josephus was not born til 37 ad so what ever he wrote about jesus was not from being there ,so he got it from someone else.
Josephus mentioned Jesus... so what? He heard some made up stories and wrote them down.
Calling someone "historical" doesn't make it true. You need to prove the fact of someone's existence before calling them "historical".
He just did in the video. Delete your comment.
Josephus= Gaius Calpernius Piso, a Roman. So, still no contemporaneous record of Jesus.
Opinion...opinion...opinion...
Jesus = Neron = ben Ananus, who was Nerones mentor/ tutor ; Lucius Anneus
Ananus = Seneca = Pilate = Judas = Simon = Caiaphas = Magus = Annas = Sergius
- the two ( ! ) historical Jesi are :
Nero Julius Ceasar = Joses, Jose, Jesus ben Pandera/ ben Kamtza, Jochanan ben Zakkai,
Jonas, Junias, Ufus, beardless John, aka the baptizer, Uncle of Neron
Princeps, son of Germanicus (Zacharias barachai) and 'Mary the elder' .
Neron Princeps = Jesus ben Yosef , Jesus ben Ananus aka Chrestos, adopt-son of Claudius
Divius, steph-brother of Brittannicus (Lazarus), grandson of Helios (Paul).
Should read " Josephus Really Mentions Jesus @90 AD "
And along with other Christian Forgeries.
Too bad There Was Not A Single Eyewitness to Jesus
you would have many to pick from, that is if Jesus really existed.
Lol ah Flavius Josephus, AKA Arias Flavius, AKA Arias Piso. Yes, he mentions Jesus. He also mentions that the the Jewish story of the exodus was actually a group called Hyksos and they weren't slaves but actually the opposite, they were the oppressors. Oh and he mentions when the 70 scribes changed the first letter of genesis that changed the entire OT. I don't hear Christians talking about this
All this means is someone named Jesus existed; nothing more.
It was a pretty common name.
@@micahlindley7515
Still is a common name in Hispanic families.
Sorry Dude- the best you can prove by this passage is that this is what Christians believed about Jesus since Josephus wrote many years after the fact. This combined with the reality that many scholars feel this is an interpolation anyway, as evidence for Jesus it is pretty thin gravy- Rich
How do you know he was getting this info from Christians
If Josephus was getting his info from Christians, then the best historian of 1st century Palestine thought the Christian accounts were reliable sources.
If Josephus didn't get his info from Christian sources, he had independent sources about Jesus.
You can pick which option fits your biases better.
He mentions the HISTORICAL JESUS, JESUS BEN ANANIAS
Very cool, a Richard Carrier talking point
@@TestifyApologetics never knew he claimed that as well
1:55-2:50 What kind of an analogy is that? For your example to hold water you would have to show a Josephus document with no jesus mentioned (an actual Mona Lisa) existing prior to the jesus Josephus doctored passage(and then a copy of the Mona Lisa with said moustache). And then you site a 10th Century document?
900+ years after the fact? Well I'm convinced. Come on.
3:42 If Origin knew about this passage (since he owned a copy of Antiquities) he would have used it in his arguments. It would of been an auto slam dunk to quote this source. Come on.
4:10 Jerome mentions Testimonium in writings dated 392-93ce, but Eusebius(the most likely injector of this jesus passage) lived around 260-339ce so how does this show it was not added? Come on.
4:30 Why was he not harsh? Any thing you say is pure speculation here. Come on.
4:38 Wise? Again anything you say is pure speculation here. Come on.
6:23 And if he did write this? @94bce. Most of the gospels were in circulation around this time so how did you rule out him copying from the gospels? Come on.
The James passage I'm still looking into, but so far your track record does not look good.
Again this is just an argument from silence, Origen would’ve had no reason to quote Josephus to support Jesus‘s existence since none of the people he was dealing with disputed that fact, also there’s no evidence of Jesus mysticism prior to the 1800s. Also he does. Josephus uses Greek terms that Eusebius would have not use at that time so the idea that he interpolated the passage is just ridiculous. So are you gonna give me the actual counterpoints or are you just gonna continue to make baseless assertions?
@@pleaseenteraname1103eusebius was greek?
@@pleaseenteraname1103how do u know eusebius wouldn’t have used the greek terms josephus used?
@@pleaseenteraname1103is it so that the greek language was so evolved by eusebias’ time that words/writing styled joesphus used in his writings would have been out of existence for eusebias? did eusebias have any access to the extinct greek of josephus’ time??
@@ant8874 OK cause I want to correct a mistake I made. Eusebius did use Konie Greg my bad.
For thos who never read Josephus. and only read what apologists cherry picked for you, how about you do your own homework and stop assuming the apologists aren't lying to you.
Josephus wrote about 2 dozen men named Jesus.
And yes, the passage about him being the messiah was a scribal interpolation.
This argument was debunked decades ago, but it persists because people don't realize apologists are just as ignorant on the subject as you are, or they know better but lie about it because it's literally their job to convince you of things to which there is no credible evidence, just fallacious arguments.
Even adam existed he was king alulim recorded by babylonian historian berusos 😂😂
Both the Jews and Muslims recognize Jeusus existed even if they dont think he was the Messiah.
Christ produced miracles before the Pharisees, and rather than be impressed they worried how this would affect their power and plotted to kill him.
Even his own apostles fought with doubt and backsliding.
It never was an intellectual issue. Its always been a moral issue. They dont want to follow Christ, so any excuse will do.
The Pharisees were not the power in Judea at the time of Jesus. They were one of three Jewish sects. The sect with power was the Sadducees, who were the Levite priests of the Temple. This is only one of the errors the Gospel writers after Marcus made because they wrote their Gospels forty years and more after the death of Jesus.
@michaelsnyder3871
The pharisees were considered the academics and prestigious elite of the time. The point is they were hypocrites, knowing the law by not living it.
The sadducees are described as theological liberals; knowing the word but not believing in the ressurection, angels and not truly knowing scripture, while Ciaphas the high preist is the one who passes judgement on christ, rending the robes of high preist in a dramatic gesture but violating levitical law in doing so.
He also unknowingly prophesied that it was better for one man to die that a nation might be saved, despite being a sadducee, theologically liberal, God still used him.
And a note; most history is recorded centuries after the fact. The gospels can be found in the epistles of Paul which are recorded even earlier than the gospels were.
Yeshua, King of israel
One it is interpolated.
Two, it wouldn't matter anyways. The Antiquity of the Jews was written in 71 A.D. 40 years after the death. It would be him reciting the stories that were passed around orally. Since he was not even born when Jesus would have died. He is not a first hand account of an eye witness. Just somebody reciting stories that had been passed around for decades. But still, Christians did interpolate the added texts. He was a faithful jew and wouldn't use the term Christos. The writing doesn't even match his style.
The original is your first paragraph without the red words. Along with Tacitus, this doesn't tell us much about the divinity of the christ and it is open to interpretations, it portray jesus as a wise man but for sure jewish and roman author are biased and won't see jesus as divine, josephus and Tacitus won't prove more than jesus lived and crucified. We looking for unbiased source from very early century that portrays jesus as devine, the only thing we have is Paul and that is not external.
@Alex Assali, Josephus actually spoke of Jesus quit neutrally and Josephus affirms Jesus worked miracles. I don’t know what you are looking for. No non biased, non Christian source is going to portray Jesus as divine. If that were so, that would make the source biased and make the source a Christian source.
@@purposedrivennihilist7983 yes. I am saying these sources doesn't tell me much about jesus divinity, it tells me jesus lived and he was a great rabbi and he was crucified. I would expect one jewish or roman source that says: "There was a wise man which had followers who believed he was god or son of god..." . We have to admit that there is no evidence and that this concept of divinity was inferred by early christians at later stage. After all jesus didn't say directly he was god and waited for descibles to say he is god but this is according to bibles and Bart argues there was interpolations. We just don't have anything outside the bibles. Also, josephus didn't say miracles, he said amazing deeds.
Josephus affirms he exists and what he was known for. I'm not trying to prove what you're saying. For that I would need to defend the reliability of the gospels. If you're interested in hearing about that, subscribe or check out my blog. I intend to make videos go into those kind of details.
@@TestifyApologetics yes. Fair enough, we have to prove the Pauline creed historicity, there is no other way
@@alexassali3628, He calls Jesus miracles amazing deeds correct.
That passage was added in the 3rd or 4th century. Doesn’t even flow correctly in the writing.
Bruh lol didn’t watch the vid