There are some segments in this series that should have been left out as they lack historical documentation. These parts include the sections that treat the mythical jesus christ as if he were a real historical figure. Not one shred of historical evidence exists that he ever lived. His entire existence is built upon hearsay perpetrated long after the "supposed" facts.
The praise of historian Flavius Josephus also is in this category. Christians often cite Josephus as a historical reference for their jesus. However, it has been known for centuries that Josephus' work which mentions christ were added in the fourth century CE by christians to give christ a semblance of legitimacy, since otherwise none exists.
Here are some instances of inconsistencies in his works:
1) “if indeed one might call him a wise man. . . For. . . accomplished surprising feats” This seems to imply that the writer believed something more about Jesus—that he was more than a mere mortal. Since it appears that Josephus never became a Christian it is hard to believe that he would write such a statement as a Jew. In other words, these sound like statements that might come from a Christian.
2) “He was the Messiah” (i.e. he was called the Christ) seems a bit strong for a Jewish historian to say about Jesus and more likely the work of a Christian. It appears to be a declaration of faith.
3) “On the third day. . . concerning him.” This is so unlikely to be from Josephus because it speaks with assurance of Jesus’ resurrection. It does not say that the Christians claimed this to be true. The text implies that Josephus held it to be true. This is quite unlikely, especially given the fact that he didn’t even say a single word of interpretation about it. For such an incredible assertion to be made, without explanation, implies its unequivocal acceptance—hardly the position of Josephus.
http://bible.org/article/josephus’-writings-and-their-relation-new-testament
Now playing
Please login or 
