Was Josephus a traitor?

[CWH]

I saw from several internet sites which say that Joepus may be a traitor. Jospehus was a Pharisee. He was also friendly with Roman Emperors Titus and Vespasian and lived with them made him highly suspicious.

· "It is hard to determine the validity of charges made against Josephus during his lifetime and repeated ever since i.e. Josephus has been accused of:

o engaging in internecine strife when he should have been preparing to resist the immanent Roman invasion of the Galilee - it is hard to know whether he had much choice in this matter;

o betraying the rebellion and his people to the Romans when he urged the rebels to surrender at the siege of Jerusalem; and,

o of a cowardly unwillingness to follow through on the mass suicide pact made by the survivors of the siege of Jotapata. Schalit describes it this way-

'When the city fell on Tammuz 1, 67, Josephus fled with 40 men to a cave. There each man resolved to slay his neighbor rather than to be taken captive by the enemy. Josephus artfully cast the lots, deceitfully managing to be one of the last two men left alive and then persuaded his companion to go out with him and surrender to the Romans.'

Of course, if he had killed himself, we would know almost nothing of the Jewish War, as indeed is the case with the later Bar Kochba Rebellion, or about the Second Temple period except for the period of the Maccabean Uprising". See also wiki on Josephus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Many Blessings.

[TheForgiven]

No Josephus was not a traitor. It was the false Jews who overtook the temple and began to do and act as they pleased.

Brother Cheow, do you know how many the false Jews killed from their own during the war? More than 100,000 thousand people died by the hand of the false seditions that infected Israel. Anyone caught trying to leave was killed by the seductive false prophets who claimed that God was on their side.

Josephus surrendered, just as the ancient fathers did. We don't know if he later became a Christian, but that doesn't matter. His writings were not about His Christianity, but about the History.

The Futurist's try discrediting the writings of Josephus as a heretic and a traitor, and it's no wonder. The historical documents of Josephus blows the Futurist's paradigm to pieces because it's one of a few sources that tells us what happened in the first century to Israel. The Futurist's want to ignore all that happened in the first century, and down-play all the events surrounding the nation of Israel. What's their agenda? To make the modern day Israel more prophetic than the first century.

Josephus may not have been a Christian, but I see no reason to call him a traitor. It's obvious that God judged those whom you probably would not call a traitor; that is, those who chose to defend the temple which God Himself destroyed.

So who's the more traitor? Defending what God Himself destroyed? Or those who surrendered to the Romans? If Josephus is guilty of treason for surrendering to the ones whom God sent to punish them, then Daniel must be even more guilty because He surrendered to the king of Babylon. I suppose Daniel should have joined the others who died to defend the temple when the Babylonian Empire destroyed the temple.

I hope you understand brother Choew.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Futurist's try discrediting the writings of Josephus as a heretic and a traitor, and it's no wonder. The historical documents of Josephus blows the Futurist's paradigm to pieces because it's one of a few sources that tells us what happened in the first century to Israel. The Futurist's want to ignore all that happened in the first century, and down-play all the events surrounding the nation of Israel. What's their agenda? To make the modern day Israel more prophetic than the first century.

That is exactly correct. But question of whether or not Josephus was a traitor to the Jews has no bearing on the validity of the history that he recorded. Even if it were biased against the Jews and in favor of Rome, the fundamental message remains. The Temple was destroyed and the prophecy of Christ was fulfilled.



Josephus may not have been a Christian, but I see no reason to call him a traitor. It's obvious that God judged those whom you probably would not call a traitor; that is, those who chose to defend the temple which God Himself destroyed.

The fact that Josephus was not a Christian strengthens the power of his historical testimony since we know he was not making up stuff to prove that the prophecies of Christ were fulfilled. In court, the strongest testimony is from hostile witnesses who are not on the side that is supported by the evidence they present.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I agree with Richard. It has little bearing on the historicity of his writings.

When he did surrender, he was to be killed on the spot except that he told his captors during interrogation that he had news that he thought Vespasian might find important. He then told Vespasian that he would rule Rome and his son Titus would command the armies of Rome to victory over Israel. He based his opinion on Daniel 9 and other prophecies. Vespasian scoffed but then decided to allow him to live when he discovered that he was a historian and decided that he would kill him after his predictions failed.

[CWH]

Obviously, someone (Josephus) who have gained the trust of the Roman Emperors (Titus and Vespasian) and even lived in their mansions and earned a handsome salary, was definitely working for the Romans. Would he have survived till old age if he was not supportive of the Roman Emperors?.... they would have him killed long ago.

I wouldn't trust Josephus, he was probably a double agent. His records of the destruction of Jerusalem may be accurate but was more likely skewed towards the Romans. Would he dared to say negative things about the Romans and the Roman Emperors?

Many Blessings.

[gregoryfl]

Then it should be easy to answer this then. When he wrote about the heavenly chariots riding in the skies in 66 AD, was he skewing history? He claims it was seen by many people, so if it were not true, would it have not been easy to refute? What purpose would he have gained by making that up? For he was not a Christian.

Ron

[CWH]

Josephus would not dare to be a Christian or he would be crucified or be fed to the lions at the Colosseum. He was a Jewish Pharisee and I believed he hated the Christians but supported the Jews. So far there is no record of him saving Christians. There was a doubtful record from him about the Lord Jesus which some believed was a later edition. Funny, he did not write about Christ coming in a cloud in his vision in AD 70 but about the heavenly chariots riding in the skies in 66 AD.

Many Blessings.

[TheForgiven]

Josephus would not dare to be a Christian or he would be crucified or be fed to the lions at the Colosseum. He was a Jewish Pharisee and I believed he hated the Christians but supported the Jews. So far there is no record of him saving Christians. There was a doubtful record from him about the Lord Jesus which some believed was a later edition. Funny, he did not write about Christ coming in a cloud in his vision in AD 70 but about the heavenly chariots riding in the skies in 66 AD.
Many Blessings.

Well that's interesting brother cheow. I understand your point, but you missed one very important fact with regards to the "Parasoiua" of Christ. This was an event that only those who had oil in their lamps (understanding) could understand. Everyone would see the event itself, but not necessarily understand it. Josephus recognized that the destruction of Jerusalem could only happen by God's will. He notes how the date of the destruction happened on the same date as that of the Babylonian Empire's invasion when Solomon's temple was destroyed. Thus, even though he did not recognize this as the Messiah's judgment, he understood that it was from God.

In any case, Josephus understood this judgment as being from God. The Romans who saw the angels and chariots of fire in the sky interpreted this as a departure of the gods. Thus, you have Josephus and the Romans witnessing the same event, but not understanding it. The Saints would not have to recognize it because they were the ones who were departed to be with Christ in the air (in my opinion for not all Preterist share this opinion of the resurrection happening in the late 60's AD).

Let us also not forget about the sword that appeared over the temple that resembled a face (more than likely Christ's face), which of course they would not have understood. And what about the comet that lasted for one year? Or the young prophet who exclaimed, "The voice of the Bride is coming! A voice from the east! A voice from the West!" He was beaten to death by the Apostate Jews for saying such things.

Signs, upon signs happened in the first century; whether they understood it or not is not important. The point is that it was recorded. Your task it disprove that those things happened, which is to disprove the very words of Jesus. For Jesus stated that they would see the "SIGNS" of the Son of Man coming in the clouds [i.e. of judgment].

Honesly brother Cheow. Why so much negativity towards a historical document. If Newton were alive to record these events, would you show such negativity towards him? I don't recognize Josephus as Christian, but a valuable source of Historical information. Without his records, nobody would have known (especially in our day) what happened during the horrible war.

Finally, the Roman arena was not built until after the Jewish war. It was built in honor of Titus, and his father Vespasian. Thus, to suggest that Josephus may have sided with the Romans in order to avoid persecution is may be mute....not that dying in the arean or outside the arena would make any difference. And remember this important fact brother Cheow. If Josephus was kept alive, it was because God willed it. For all of us have our days numbered, and for some reason, God chose to spare Josephus. We could only hope that he converted before dying. And who knows; he probably did. But that has nothing to do with the integrity of his historical document. He may not have converted to Christianity, but he did love his country, as they all did. Why not extend him the same credit as you give those who love modern day Israel, who are not even Israel?

Joe

[gregoryfl]

That again is why I ask the question, which was not answered:

Where is any evidence that the chariots appearing in the sky in 66 was refuted by anyone as something made up by Josephus? We could ask the same about the other signs as well but I just want to know whether it is believed that Josephus lied about this, and if so, what proof is there of it?

Ron

[CWH]

That again is why I ask the question, which was not answered:

Where is any evidence that the chariots appearing in the sky in 66 was refuted by anyone as something made up by Josephus? We could ask the same about the other signs as well but I just want to know whether it is believed that Josephus lied about this, and if so, what proof is there of it?

Ron

Hi Ron,

I don't think anyone could answer your question. No one living now have witnessed what Josephus said about seeing chariots appearing in the sky n AD 66. It was all his words and it depends on whether one believes him or not. I guess most of us are "doubting Thomases"; seeing is believing. If someone were to say to me that he saw chariots flying in the sky today which I did not see with my own eyes, I will never believe him,... would you? Even news from reporters, do not take them at face value because the news may be exaggerated or dramatized to attract readers, Josephus may have done that as well. Lying and dramatizing are not synonymous in meaning.

Many Blessings.

[TheForgiven]

Brother Cheow. What possible motive would a non-Christian such as Josephus have in lying about the signs they witnessed? How would this help his relationship with the Romans? (assuming you believe he wrote his letter out of false motives).

There's no possible reason to make up such things.

St. Eusesbius of the 3rd century read his writings and came to the same conclusion the earlier fathers had. The judgment of Jerusalem in 70AD was the fulfillment of Matthew 24. If you read the writings of Clement of Rome, Origen, and a few others, you will note that they also viewed Matthew 24 as fulfilled in 70AD.

Therefore, what possible reason would Josephus have in lying about the events? Would this somehow strengthen this relationship with the Romans? Trying to discredit somenone's writing merely because it damages the authenticity of modern day eschatology is not enough reason my friend. You've got to list facts, and/or sources before his writings could be thrown out as fictional. But keep in mind that a Roman Historian also recorded the angels seen in the sky in 66 AD.

I see no true reason to expect a Jewish Historian to lie, especially when it's obvious he loved his country very much.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm reading Jesus and Christian Origins by F. F. Bruce (thanks to Ron's citation in this (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18019&postcount=21) post). He mentions some very interesting facts pertinent to our current discussion (as well as others we have been having):

F. F. Bruce, pgs 32-34:
More astonishing that Josephus's successful prediction [that Vespasian would become emperor] is the process of argument which led him to it: he had just come to the conclusion that the ancient Hebrew oracles which foretold the emergence of a world-ruler from Judaea pointed not to someone of Jewish stock but to the commander of the Roman armies in Judaea. ... In other words, Vespasian was the promised Messiah. [War iii.392-408]

That a patriotic Jew could entertain such a perverted interpretation of Israel's ancestral hope may seem almost incredible, and indeed we are indebted for our knowledge of the matter to Josephus's own account, written down by him some time after Vespasian's assumption of the imperial purple; but there is no reason to doubt that in general his account of the matter is a true one, although it may have been touched up here and there in light of later developments. It appears too, that Josephus was influenced by a calculation according to which Daniel's 'seventy weeks' or 490 years (Daniel 9.24027) were due to expire around that time, and he probably identified Vespasian with 'the prince who was to come' of Daniel 9:26.

Josephus's fellow-countrymen did not appreciate the subtlety of his motives for going over to the enemy side, and have tended to regard him ever since as a renegade and traitor. Yet, according to his own lights, however dim they were, Josephus did what he believed to be the best thing for his nation, and when the war was over he devoted the second half of his life, which he spent in Rome as a pensioner of the imperial house, to writing in defense of the prestige of the Jews with which his own prestige wa intimately bound up.

Naturally, Josephus would not write anything calculated to offend his Roman patrons, especially during the reign of Vespasian's second son Domitian (A.D. 81-96) - a man cursed with an insanely suspicious nature and also with an irrational anti-Jewish prejudice. This must be borne in mind when we consider his allusions to Christian beginnings. For these appear in his Jewish Antiquities, a long work of twenty books which was written towards the end of Domitian's reign. He wrote this work, covering the history of the Jewish nation from its remotest origins down to his own day, in order to show that the antiquity and record of the Jewish nation compared favourably with those of the most renowned of the Gentile nations.
Thus we see support for Cheow's view that Josephus was a "traitor" as well as the opposite view that Josephus was a "defender of the Jews."

And I find it extremely interesting that Josephus (who was not a Christian) identified the "prince to come" as Vespasian. Fascinating stuff!

Something to chew on :pop2:

Richard

[CWH]

Joe said:
I see no true reason to expect a Jewish Historian to lie, especially when it's obvious he loved his country very much.

If Josephus loved his country, he would have died for his country, Israel. fighting against the Romans. I wonder which country he loved very much, Rome or Israel. How could someone who survived a suicide attempt, goes to the enemy's king side, lived in their luxurious mansions and enjoying their company, getting paid a handsome salary, writing nothing against the Romans, encouraged the Jews to surrender and lived to a ripe old age and not a traitor? It's like trusting a US general going to North Vietnam during the Vietnam war, tried committing suicide but was saved by the enemy, lived in the North Vietnam's Presidential palace luxuriouly till old age and enjoying the enemy's company, get fully paid by North Vietnam and said nothing against the North Vietnamese but encouraged the US soldiers to surrender.

BTW and nonetheless, I admired Josephus historical records of the destruction of Jerusalem but I am suspicious of his true character. I am also not saying that Josephus was a liar but I think he may be biased in his account.

Many Blessings.

[TheForgiven]

Joe said:
I see no true reason to expect a Jewish Historian to lie, especially when it's obvious he loved his country very much.


If Josephus loved his country, he would have died for his country, Israel. fighting against the Romans. I wonder which country he loved very much, Rome or Israel. How could someone who survived a suicide attempt, goes to the enemy's king side, lived in their luxurious mansions and enjoying their company, getting paid a handsome salary, writing nothing against the Romans, encouraged the Jews to surrender and lived to a ripe old age and not a traitor? It's like trusting a US general going to North Vietnam during the Vietnam war, tried committing suicide but was saved by the enemy, lived in the North Vietnam's Presidential palace luxuriouly till old age and enjoying the enemy's company, get fully paid by North Vietnam and said nothing against the North Vietnamese but encouraged the US soldiers to surrender.

BTW and nonetheless, I admired Josephus historical records of the destruction of Jerusalem but I am suspicious of his true character. I am also not saying that Josephus was a liar but I think he may be biased in his account.

Many Blessings.

First of all my friend, expecting someone to die for their country is one thing. But expecting someone to die for a sinful country is another. It was God who told them through the prophets that He would send calamity upon them. Therefore, should they fight against the hand of God? The Babylonian Empire invaded Israel and destroyed the people, temple, and city, just as Jeremiah the prophet warned them. Why? Because of the sins of Solomon.

And if you're going to expect Josephus to die for a sinful nation that betrayed God, then shouldn't Daniel the prophet be just as guilty? He surrendered to Nebechegnedzar, and eventually became a very important figure. Let's not forget about Joseph, who was betrayed by his own brothers. Joseph eventually became a very high figure in Egypt, just as Daniel became in Babylon.

Now granted Josephus may not have been a godly member of Israel. But this I do know without a doubt. He survived because God permitted it, and there must have been a reason.

I hate to say this brother Cheow, but I don't think you realize the danger of your position with regards to Josephus. Israel of the flesh was being judged because of its wickedness. If you believe that the false Jews who died protecting her were right in doing so, then you are basically joining them in their sin. For that is the same as saying, "If only we were alive in the days of our forefathers, we would never have nailed our Lord to the cross..." And of course Christ would condemn you for siding with the wrong side.

Were the Romans guilty of destroying Israel of the flesh? No, they were not, for they were doing what was commanded of them, by the Hand of God. Were the ones who died defending the city righteous before God? No because they were fighting against the hand of God, and failed to heed the warning given NOT ONLY by Jesus, but the Apostles He sent to them. ONLY THOSE who heeded the warning to flee, did so because they were forewarned of this pending disaster and the Great Tribulation which would inflict misery, death, and destruction upon the heresy and blasphemy they committed against the Spirit of God. Nailing Him to the cross and accusing Christ of having a demon was a very serious offense.

Now Josephus was obviously not without guilt. But Biblically, he did the right thing when you compare the former prophets who surrendered to the will of God. And it was God's will they their people, temple, and city be destroyed forever, like a large millstone tossed into the sea, never to be found again.

Lastly, I think all Futurist's should purchase airplane tickets, fly to the land you all call "Israel" and help them rebuild. You preach it, teach it, and believe in it, therefore, fill up your part by assisting them in rebuilding. Or is it much better to watch from the side lines and watch what you believe will be impending disaster? THAT is exactly how the Futurist's act! And it's shameful to say the least.

Heretical teachers such as John Haggee spend millions of money for the "Send a Jew Home" program, while at the same time teaching that they will go through a great Tribulation, and that an AC figure will overcome them. Where's the hypocrisy behind this? He's paying their way to their deaths, and all so he can ignorantly believe and teach that Jesus cannot return until the Jews have been re-gathered to their nation; unfortunately not without first experiencing disaster. Well then my faithful Futurist's. Fill up your own measure, fly to geographical Israel against the will of the Church, help the ones you call Jew rebuild the temple, restart the animal sacrifices, and totally disregard the salvation you were entrusted BY FAITH, and abandon all that the God of grace has instructed you!

I know I'm hard in this post, but it's about time that we Preterist's start telling it like it is. We've been too nice, and rightly so, but it's about time that Preterist voices begin exposing the obvious fallacies of the Futurist's paradigm, and letting the world know the hypocrisy they continually engage in. "Sending a Jew home to his destruction?" And then claiming it was God's will, while the Futurist's believe they are not responsible? Gee, let me just purchase drugs for my own children, send them to their deaths, just so I can say, "It was prophesied!" Such foolishness!

Josephus foolish and a traitor? Perhaps, but He did exactly what God allowed him to do; that is, surrender to the Hand of God, just as Daniel surrendered to the Babylonians, or Jeremiah as well. You may also want to consider the grace of Christ Jesus. His temple was destroyed, but He at no time resisted, even to the point of death. So should Josephus have resisted? NO! Does that make him a traitor and sinner because he failed to fight for his country? NO! He understood that what was happening, was so because God willed it. Fighting against His hand is not a wise thing.

Brother Cheow, you need to take a long look at what you're standing on. I say this with tough love, but you're headed in the wrong direction my friend.

Joe

[CWH]

I hate to say this brother Cheow, but I don't think you realize the danger of your position with regards to Josephus. Israel of the flesh was being judged because of its wickedness. If you believe that the false Jews who died protecting her were right in doing so, then you are basically joining them in their sin. For that is the same as saying, "If only we were alive in the days of our forefathers, we would never have nailed our Lord to the cross..." And of course Christ would condemn you for siding with the wrong side.

Lastly, I think all Futurist's should purchase airplane tickets, fly to the land you all call "Israel" and help them rebuild. You preach it, teach it, and believe in it, therefore, fill up your part by assisting them in rebuilding. Or is it much better to watch from the side lines and watch what you believe will be impending disaster? THAT is exactly how the Futurist's act! And it's shameful to say the least.

I know I'm hard in this post, but it's about time that we Preterist's start telling it like it is. We've been too nice, and rightly so, but it's about time that Preterist voices begin exposing the obvious fallacies of the Futurist's paradigm, and letting the world know the hypocrisy they continually engage in. "Sending a Jew home to his destruction?" And then claiming it was God's will, while the Futurist's believe they are not responsible? Gee, let me just purchase drugs for my own children, send them to their deaths, just so I can say, "It was prophesied!" Such foolishness!

Brother Cheow, you need to take a long look at what you're standing on. I say this with tough love, but you're headed in the wrong direction my friend.
Joe

If that is what you want in this forum Joe, you have totally lose the debate and you will also loose me soon. Don't always think preterism is always right. I can see the flaws which you have been blinded; get the log out of your eyes first brother! I am doing an honest debate here, putting my points across and you rebuke me! I asked again RAM, IS THIS A PRETERIST FORUM? ARE NON -_PRETERISTS WELCOME?

Many Blessings!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If that is what you want in this forum Joe, you have totally lose the debate and you will also loose me soon. Don't always think preterism is always right. I can see the flaws which you have been blinded; get the log out of your eyes first brother! I am doing an honest debate here, putting my points across and you rebuke me! I asked again RAM, IS THIS A PRETERIST FORUM? ARE NON -_PRETERISTS WELCOME?

Many Blessings!
Hi Cheow! :hug:

I would hope after all the time you have spent here you would know that non-Preterists are absolutely welcome in this forum!

I understand your frustration with Joe's frustration. But please don't ever think that you are not welcome here. You are a valuable member of this forum.

I'll comment more after I review Joe's post.

Many blessings to you my diligent friend!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

If that is what you want in this forum Joe, you have totally lose the debate and you will also loose me soon. Don't always think preterism is always right. I can see the flaws which you have been blinded; get the log out of your eyes first brother! I am doing an honest debate here, putting my points across and you rebuke me! I asked again RAM, IS THIS A PRETERIST FORUM? ARE NON -_PRETERISTS WELCOME?

Many Blessings!

Losing you? That's a choice you make brother cheow. Granted I don't wish for you to leave, nor would I wish that on anyone. But as it now stands, you and brother Joel are the only two Futurist's on here that at least debate eschatology.

My last post was a bit harsh, but it wasn't directed solely at you, but all Futurist's who support the false notion of a 3rd temple. I've asked you a dozen times to present the scriptural facts supporting the idea of a 3rd temple, and to date, you've presented nothing. Instead, you quote verses from Matthew 24, which you claim speaks of the end of creation, when it's quite obvious that was not even part of the context.

I enjoy debating with you, but at times it doesn't appear we're actually debating. Preterist's go through much labor pointing out scriptures, history, and context to build a strong case. Futurist's, on the other hand, merely state opinions which they cannot prove, but insist it to be true. And instead of letting scripture interpret itself, we're always told what the text means from an external perspective, and not internal perspective. In other words, the interpretation of the text is based on an external eschatology which could only be explained by someone else, and not by the text.

If Jeffrey Dahmer claimed that Dune Buggies were Chariots of fire, he would not be able to prove it. Yet because it was his own idea, and if he chose to debate it, he'd choose to defend his position simply on the merits of it being his idea. Now I'm not comparing you to Jeffrey Dahmer, but the situation is the same. The ideas you present are not backed by solid scripture; only ideas which you cling to without evidence. And when we show you ideas from the writings of Josephus, your group of eschatology insists that because he was a heretic (by your own opinion), his historical details must be erased from the world. Well, the micro-chip was not developed (not yet anyways) by a Christian, so should we accept the Futurist eschatology of a chip-implant, primarily because it was written about, or developed by a Christian? Obviously not! So why would erasing the works of Josephus be any different? All he did was record the events of his race.

You accused Josephus of being a traitor because he surrendered to the enemy, as is expected by God. For it was God who struck the land with His mighty hand, and for a good reason. But you believe that he should have fought to the death. Well, that's the same as fighting against God. So either way, he's wrong if he fights against the Romans, but he's wrong for surrendering to them. That's the conflict you're ignoring, and all so the Futurist's (and you) can discredit his writings. Why? Because he tells us a history you don't want to pay attention to. Futurist's would love to erase the history books about the first century destruction of Jerusalem so that they could easily manipulate young Christians into following the path of failed predictions, false assumptions, and absurd ideas. And it's those false ideas that I sometimes detest. For false ideas are nothing more than lies. And lies are exposed when the predictions, or guesses fail to come to pass. But, according to the Futurist's, these were not lies, despite making money off of these ideas, instead, they were "mistakes", which are always OK to make unless you're a Preterist. (another example of Hypocrisy).

Josephus may have acted as a coward. But be honest my friend; what would you do if you were in his time, and in his shoes? Would you choose to fight against the Romans? Or would you surrender? What would Christ do?

Think about it my friend.

Joe

[CWH]

The last thing I want from this forum is hurling insults and curses against each other due to differences in opinions. I don't think this is the way this forum should progress; it will do nobody any good. I have already said that each eschatological position has its own merits. I can't say futurism is perfect and flawless neither do I expect a preterist to say preterism is perfect and flawless. For a debate to be fair, one should not rebuke or hurl threats and curses against those who have differences in opinions or when he finds himself at the losing end.

As for Joe, it goes the same, I have asked questions that go unanswered. I asked why God have double standards judging souls that died before AD 70 in the GWT and those who died after AD 70 were judged straightaway in heaven. Sometimes I feel it is unfair to say that Futurists were out to profit from their talks and books, don't preterists also do the same with their published books and seminars. *Please note I don't belong to those futurists who like to date set and make outlandish predictions and I don't publish books or conduct seminars. Don't put me into that category of Full Futurist.

Joe said, "Preterist's go through much labor pointing out scriptures, history, and context to build a strong case". Now how would I know that God used Josephus for HIS purpose and How would I know that Josephus works was God-inspired? I have never discredit Josephus works, don't put words into my mouth, in fact, I said I admired his works, only that certain parts may be biased.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The last thing I want from this forum is hurling insults and curses against each other due to differences in opinions. I don't think this is the way this forum should progress; it will do nobody any good. I have already said that each eschatological position has its own merits. I can't say futurism is perfect and flawless neither do I expect a preterist to say preterism is perfect and flawless. For a debate to be fair, one should not rebuke or hurl threats and curses against those who have differences in opinions or when he finds himself at the losing end.

Hey there Cheow! :yo:

Very well stated! I agree 1000% - thanks for helping to keep this forum on track.

:signthankspin:



Joe said, "Preterist's go through much labor pointing out scriptures, history, and context to build a strong case". Now how would I know that God used Josephus for HIS purpose and How would I know that Josephus works was God-inspired? I have never discredit Josephus works, don't put words into my mouth, in fact, I said I admired his works, only that certain parts may be biased.

Many Blessings.
I think it would be a very big mistake to think that Josephus's works were "God-inspired." No Preterist has made that suggestion as far as I know. His works are just history, like every other history book that is not in the Bible.

Many blessings,

Richard

[Codger]

Josephus was not a Christian - was he a traitor? The Jews think so and do not accept his writings even today as being truthful. He was writing under the sponsership of the Flavian Family (He even took their Name) and it is expected by me that he is not going to make them look bad in his writings. Here is where his true bias is.

As far as what he wrote, the people who were eyewitnesses read his materials and he had to be careful not to misrepresent the history or lie in his manuscript.

In NT times there was a great falling away from the Faith. This was caused by the escalating rage between the Jews and the Romans. The book of Hebrews was written specifically to the Hebrew Christians who under persecution were starting to revert back to Judiasm. The whole book of Hebrews was to try to convince them to endure the persecution of Nero and see the New Covenant as a better covenant. Once you go back to the old system of animal sacrifice there remains no more sacrifice for sin. If you leave Jesus and go back to the old symbolic sacrifice system - you are lost.

Likewise as the tensions between the Romans and Jews escalated many Christians decided to fight against the Romans. Second Peter and the book of Jude are written to the Christians which were leaving Christianaty to join the ranks of the Jewish Zealots.

So my question to you is... Were the Christians who reverted back to their Jewish roots considered Patriots? Or should the Messianic Christians who would not fight be called traitors? Jesus told them not to fight but to pack up and leave the city when they saw two things. The abomination standing where it had not to be and when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. Both of these signs happened at the same time because they were fulfilled by The Roman General Cestius who also was encamped on Mt Scopus. When this happened the Christians quickly left town.

Who is a traitor depends on your viewpoint in history.

Larry