Its weird, I am an atheist and I have never heard this comparison until a christian friend asked me if thought it was true. I told him I don't know anything about it so Id have to learn more. I asked another atheist friend her opinion and so she showed me some videos. However she didn't have any archeological sources, nor any sources that were of actual academic merit. And she got very frustrated with me because I wasn't convinced. I am a skeptic so I don't want to just believe Jesus is based on other mythological figures without legitimate sources. I need to hear what Christian Experts are saying as well before I draw any conclusions, so thank you for posting the video.
@@kingchakazulu7762 I can't find anything proving Christ actually existed but the overwhelming historian say he most probably did so I think he did. I don't know enough about archeology so I have to go with the experts on this one.
Ms. Sharp has focused on the disparities in the pagan myths rather than the common themes found between paganism and Christianity. If Christianity really did use the pagan themes of 'virgin birth', 'dying and rising gods', and 'resurrection' to formulate a new religion, would it use the exact accounts about the pagan gods, or would it use the basic themes and change them up to be something newer and better? The common themes are obviously there. One major concept in Christianity that I think is more paganistic than not is the idea of a god who would require a human sacrifice in order for his creations to be reconciled to him. And what kind of god would give his creations their 'free will' to make a choice as to whether or not to believe that, and then punish them by burning them alive forever if they don't? Sounds like a pagan god to me. As to whether or not the 'Jesus story' fits with other pagan stories, of course it does. Isn't man trying once again to use religion to manipulate a god? If you believe and live a good life, you'll be rewarded. If you don't, you'll be punished. What's the difference? The only one I can see is that Christianity will burn you forever if you don't believe it.
@@traigounregalo OK. Tell me about the new heaven and the new Earth, and The God outside the Universe. And about jesus returning and believers having glorified bodies in the new creation.
Well the fact that there’s free will… and with that free will we are given truth. God sending his son to die for us so that we can go back to him, and a lot of times, we try to justify by ending it at the death of his son, but we forget he resurrected. The point is that we no longer have to be afraid of death, because Jesus Christ Coquered death for us, and made a way for us to come to life after death. And to blame God that if we don’t choose him, we burn for eternity, is highly illogical because he’s giving us the free choice!?!? if we choose that path then that’s us in our ignorance and selfishness. That selfish mindset is gonna get you there. But choosing to know your creator is building the foundation of a relationship so that you can inherit what she has for you. But if you just want what is of this world then that’s what you are going to get. You’re going to get nothing. We already know you die you can’t take any riches or anything in this earth with you. So you live a life of vanity. But he made a Way so that you choose life of a fulfillment, because he is the fulfillment.
Might as well said the Bible is true because it says it's true and that's why the gospels aren't a myth. The more she tried to make her case, the more mythical it sounded.
"Just because an elephant has four legs doesn't make it a table." I love this quote because it's exactly what is going on when people want to compare myths with the story of Jesus. The stories are completely different but people want to hang onto virgin birth.
The virgin birth may be a mistranslation in Greek. The ancient Greek word for virgin and "young girl" are very similar. An early scribe of the text could easily make an error as they are perceived as one and the same.
@@musik102 The alternative would have been that as a "young girl" she had sex with her husband, Joseph. You assumed that God is a male with a penis. Why? If there is but the one god then it would not need either a penis or a vagina as it wouldn't need to pee or procreate. If God did come to earth, then and impregnated Mary then he would be both the father and the son. The son having sex with his mother? Another alternative would be rape. But if Joseph believed she was unfaithful he could have her drink a concoction to abort the child. ( Numbers 5:11-31). There are about ten references to God sanctifying the killing of unborn children in the Bible. Now out of those alternatives which one seems the most plausible to you? .
@@AAwildeone The Virgin Birth of Jesus is the doctrine that Jesus was conceived and born by his mother Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit and without sexual intercourse with her husband Joseph. The Orthodox churches accept it as authoritative by reason of its inclusion in the Nicene Creed centuries later, the Catholic church likewise holds it authoritative for faith through the Apostles' Creed as well as the Nicene, and Protestants regard it as an explanation of the mixture of the human and divine natures of Jesus; but although it has clear scriptural backing in two gospels, the consensus of modern scholars is that its historical foundations are very flimsy. The Bible doesn't say Mary was a virgin. Mary and Joseph were already married before God decided to lend his seed. Like most young couples they were likely humping like rabbits before God gave her his seed. All that Mary remembers is that the night before she went to a party and met both Bill Cosby and God. And I would like to point out that at no time did God contribute financially to the upbringing of that child. God was the original dead beat dad.
She talks about Luke…she’s an educator and talking about the importance of primary sources and yet she doesn’t mention that all the gospels were written by UNKNOWN authors.
Her first few minutes is a PERFECT example of atheist apologetics. You can’t use the Bible to prove your points. It’s circular logic and it doesn’t work. It’d “for the Bible told me so.” I’d like to see her debate Dr. Richard Carrier, he’d wipe the floor with her.
Richard Carrier? Who is that? Oh, you mean that atheist historian who got his ass handed to him in a debate with William Lane Craig on the resurrection (he admitted that he lost)? Also, is that the same guy that Pastor Damon Richardson "wiped the floor with" in their debate on the historical Jesus? Yeah, that guy. Whatever happens to the boy? Poor fella ain't been the same since.
I have read both the stories of Jesus and Osiris. Both have stories of a death and resurrection after 3 days. Try reading Bojana Mojsov "Osiris Death and After life of a God. If you want to see the astronomy for both Osiris and Jesus, then watch the interview I did with Jan Irving from Gnostic Media. The title of the video is: Astrotheology: Fact or Fiction? If you are looking for the truth and you watch my video, then come back an listing to Mary Jo, you will either laugh your ass off or weep in disgust. LOL Orion is the constellation that represents the Egyptian God Osiris. The astrological Cross that Jesus is crucified on is also Orion. The 3 belt stars make the middle of the cross and the shoulder star Betelgeuse is the top of the cross and the Rigel is the bottom of the cross. Skull Hill is the Winter Triangle, which is the stars, Betelgeuse, Procyon and Sirius. When the cross goes below the horizon in the west, Ophiuchus (the coffin) or tomb rises in the east. This happens exactly at 6am on Dec. 21st (the Winter Solstice) when the Sun is dead for 3 days and then resurrects. Osiris and Jesus has the same story and the same, exact astronomy. Oh, Mary Jo, how are you going to act? LOL
@Ra Mabus She has to keep people in the darkness. That is how it works. YOu wrote your comments seven years ago. Now people are more aware of christianity and how Constatine has used it .
Eyewitnesses of Christ’s Glory 3:21 -- 2 Peter 1 (NRSV): 16 For we did not follow *cleverly* *devised* *myths* when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been *eyewitnesses* of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 *We* *ourselves* *heard* this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.... 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 2 Peter 2 .....there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
From "God's Infallible Word" by David Bernard "The Bible sometimes alludes to scientific truths unknown to ancient societies, such as the following: the life-sustaining role of blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:14); the vital role of the heart in blood circulation (Proverbs 14:30); the earth’s hanging in outer space (Job 26:7); the roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22); the immense number of stars, far more than the eye can see (Genesis 22:17); humans being made of the same elements as the earth (Genesis 2:7); global wind circuits (Ecclesiastes 1:6); the hydrologic cycle, in which rain on land originates in water evaporated from the ocean (Ecclesiastes 1:7); and air as having weight (Job 28:25). The roundness and rotation of the earth are implied by Christ’s statement that at the time of His return nighttime and daytime activities will be taking place simultaneously (Luke 17:34-36). The Bible alludes to the two laws of thermodynamics, the two most fundamental principles of modern science. The first law says that the total quantity of energy in the universe (including matter) is constant; that is, it is being neither created nor destroyed. (See Genesis 2:2-3; Hebrews 1:3.) The second law says that the universe is continually becoming more disorderly; that is, entropy (disorder or unavailable energy) is increasing. (See Genesis 3:17-19; Psalm 102:25-26; Romans 8:20-22.) And, as Henry Morris has explained, these two laws point to the truth of creation by God: The first law of thermodynamics, states . . . that none of the tremendous energy (or “power”) of the universe is now being created, so that the universe could not have created itself. The second law . . . states that the available energy of the universe is decreasing, indicating that sometime in the past all the energy (including matter) was available and per- fectly organized, like a clock that had just been wound up. This shows that the universe must have been cre- ated, even though it could not create itself. The two laws thus point inexorably back to Gen. 1:1." (BORROWED FROM sIR rEG)
This lady is "Cherry Picking " mythological stories to point out that these specific stories do not conform to the stories in the NT about Jesus. However, there are plenty instances in the culture present in the tme of Jesus to indicate that the NT is filled (not only) with mythology, but actual lies about what is said in the OT text in an attempt by the Church to prove that their doctrine(s) regarding Jesus and the Trinity are true. Some examples: -- Many of the kings and Gods of that time period were said to be born of human virgins. That is, born of females that were virgins (usually impregnated by one of the pagan Gods), not of mythological "monsters" or by anything other than a natural birth process. -- The NT gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a SIGN that he was divine. What is a sign? It is something that you can see (for example the sign of the rainbow given to Noah). How do you look at a woman and see that she is a virgin? You can't. Even if you were present when a woman is giving birth, can you tell that this is a virgin birth, certainly not. So, claiming a "virgin birth" as a "sign" is not valid. Also, the NT is supposedly based on the OT and should conform to the OT in every way. It does not! There is no text in the OT supporting a virgin birth of a Messiah! -- We do not know who wrote the books of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The authors listed for these stories were assigned by the Catholic Church based on the fact that these people were traditionally thought to be the authors, but there is nothing in the ending of each of these stories that state "Yours Truly, Mark/Matthew/Luke/John", respectively. Also, you might note that Matthew talks of himself in the third person as "Mathew said that..."; in the book of John, he states that what he is relating was from someone else. Last, but not least, the NT states that the followers of Jesus were illiterate (as were 99% of the population of that day), so they could not read or write! -- The "Trinity" is not a devine declaration by GOD. In fact, it is not mentioned in the bible at all. It was decided that Jesus would be one part of a 3-PART GOD HEAD by men who gathered together at the council of nicaea in the year 325 CE. This is nothing more than idol worshiping! -- The resurrection narrative - this story did not/could not have happened. The whole story is fiction, a plot devise by the authors. The authors needed a plot device so that someone would supposedly go to the tomb and find it empty demonstrating that Jesus had risen. This is the fictional story that they came up with. Whar proves this? Number one, if you look at the places in the NT where the text talks of this particular story, there is a vast difference of how many people came to the tomb, and how many angels were seen, and where the angels were sitting/standing when discovered, etc. However, I am willing to overlook these discrepancies as each Author may have just (supposedly) seen (and told) the story from their own perssonal perspective and this may have accounted for these (wide ranging) differences. But, delve a little deeper and this story of the resurection falls apart. Why did the women go to the tomb? Answer: to bring spices to put on the body of Jesus. STOP RIGHT THERE! At that time, spices were put on a body immediately after death to cover/hide the order of decaying/decomposing flesh (today, refrigeration is used to accomplish this). People who might wish to view the body would then be able to do so w/o having to tolerate that terrible odor. SO THE FIRST PROBLEM with the story is that the women were bringing spices to put on the body of Jesus 3 days after his death. Jesus lived in an area of the world where the climate was warm/hot. Three days after he died, the odor of his decomposition would have been overwhelming to say the least. Also, there was absolutely no reason for anyone to prepare and put spices on a body after it was already buried/entombed. THE SECOND PROBLEM is even more serious. The Jewish religion has very strict rules about the separation of the sexes. In those days (as it is even today), when a man dies (and before hs burial), his body is washed and cleansed by a group of males to show respect for the vessel that once held his Godly soul. When a woman dies, this is also done, but by a group of females. NEVER would a deceased male be "treated/handled" by a group of women, and NEVER would a deceased female be "treated/handled" by a group of males. It would be a gigantic sin/sacrilege. However, according to the NT, here we have female(s) coming to the tomb 3 days after the "burial" to put spices on the body of Jesus. A body that is by now well into the stages of decomposition and (no doubt) bloated - the smell alone would have been horiffic. Not only were they wanting to unnessarily add these spices to a 3-day old dead body, but that body would not have been considered fully dressed. In fact, with only a thin covering, the body would have been considered (at least) partially nude. So, to summarise, here in this fictional story, we have very religious jewish women bring spices to put on the 3-day-old rotting body of Jesus who is only partly dressed. IT DID NOT HAPPEN, IT IS A FAIRYTAIL IN A FICTITIOUS STORY TRYING TO SHOW THAT JESUS HAD RISEN. IF THIS STORY IS FICTITOUS AND IF IT DID NOT OCCUR (AND BOTH OF THESE "IF" STATEMENTS ARE DEFINITELY TRUE), THEN THERE WAS NO RESURRECTION. IT IS A FAIRY TALE. If Jesus existed at all, he is not mentioned in any historical books of that day outside the NT. If Jesus did exist, he was a man far removed from the drivel that the NT wants Christians to believe about his existence. RETURN TO THE ONE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB. DO NOT FOLLOW THE FALSE GODS AND TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH!
Perhaps, all of history is fictional from that warped perspective. Perhaps, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates never existed. Perhaps, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Abe Lincoln are all made-up, fictional characters. Your logic, or the lack thereof, is thoroughly, absurd.
In school, on my way to my MA in Comparative Religion, I was taught these ideas as the contrast between Cosmological and Radical Monotheistic religions. One represents the cycles of nature of which we are part of and which can be manipulated through magic and rituals; the latter (radical Monotheism) claims a Being, totally transcendent and other, Who has a plan and goal which unfolds through time and space. In the latter also, magic is viewed negatively as the attempt to manipulate God.
Ohhh, so all the other sons of god that died and brought back to life in 3 days before the Jesus story are all wrong but your version of the same story was the correct one? Makes total sense!
Sol Nox Mercurius they aren’t the same though.. do you know all the stories? One example is that Horus was chopped up and scattered all about the place and Isis went and got his reproductive organs and inseminated herself and the child that was born from that was Osiris and believed to be an ‘incarnation’ (not resurrected) and every pharaoh after that was believed to be another incarnation of Horus. Now that’s very different indeed from the story of Jesus isn’t it. That’s just the first Horus one.. There are actuall historical accounts from Emperors and scribes that Jesus or Yahweh did actually live and was executed.. U see the powers that be, the ruling elite of that time, the ones that don’t want their little worker bees (us) to be spiritually awakened and in harmony with the earth knew about these pagan stories so they would have added or omitted parts to suit themselves and their own gain to keep us lot bamboozled but they couldn’t completely cover up the fact that Jesus actually lived
Ok, the Bible is considered a text when it comes to asserting whether he existed or not. The lecture IS NOT designed to prove Jesus was divine, it's intended to debunk the pagan similarity to Jesus argument. So all you people saying she is using her religious texts to prove her religion DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE LECTURE. Religious texts are totally acceptable when attempting to establish the historicity of a figure. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE between doing historical scholarship and engaging in apologetics. Religious texts are clearly used extensively by historians to answer factual questions about history. LET ME REPEAT: THIS VIDEO IS ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS AND THE DISSIMILARITIES BETWEN JESUS AND CONTEMPORANEOUS PAGAN MYTHS. This isn't trying to prove Jesus was God. If you can't understand that distinction you need to do some more schooling.
It occurs to me that this discipline of Christian Apologetics is based on a pretty literal interpretation of the Bible and with the exception of the extraordinarily biased does not take into account Archaeological and Historical evidence. For starts, I have become sceptical that a place called Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus. Therefore what was the purpose of these after the fact mythological accounts called the Gospels?
As usual, when confronted with anything that questions the authenticity of the Christ narrative the bible is the proof used to refute. Outside of the religious community that doesn't pass the laugh test.
She's not exactly correct in her mythos and gods details, but no one is 100% correct all the time regarding the mythos. She's right, they change and morph over time as well as having different schools of thought and different translation versions. I have 3 different versions of the Papyrus of Ani, or the book of going forth by day alone. It's an important work and the versions are quite different. And I think it's safe to say that the original 68 commandments found in the old Torah came directly from the Egyptian book of the dead and the declarative statements one dictates to all the gods after ones death. If I remember correctly, it's either spell 124 or 128 in the Papyrus of Ani. So the commandments are a pretty direct plagurizarion. It's also safe to say that the genesis recounting was a direct retelling of the Enuma Elish, or the 7 tablets of creation in the museums under the babylonian/sumerian/Mesopotamian exhibits. Also, I think it's furthermore safe to say that the deluge epic in the bible is another direct retelling of the Atra Hasis epic; yet another Sumerian/babylonian recorded work. Not much of the bible is original except some of the retelling attempts in the New Testament when they had to insert words in a Jesus' mouth who never could have spoke those words. If the persona even existed as a man in human form, it's very probable it's from a much older time and that persona has become a prototype for many personas after it and in the bible. Isn't the Old Testament Joseph even yet another matching persona of this savior archetype prototype? Osiris and Isis were the ruling gods of dynastic Egypt for most of the time and Horus was their son; and possibly our sun as well. Horus does have many similar parallels with Jesus and a few differences. And I believe more similarities exist with the Zoroastrian Mithra. None of the translated mythos are quite an exact science. There are differences and minor discrepancies just depending upon which books you choose to get and who did the bulk of the translations. E Wallis Budge, etc as well as many other translation versions. There are many versions for every mythos now, which adds layers of obscurity and obfuscation to the entire process of attempting to elaborate on the mythos attempting to morph them into allegorical historical stories. Anthropomorphized gods created to explain natural events and forces before we properly understood them sounds completely logical to me and I would think would be an inevitable growing step in humanities' growth and understanding. Doing this is sometimes a very difficult and almost impossible task without having to make some judgement calls and a few choices along the way. Like she said, there are many different versions for each individual mythos or event. So this means that she is right and each and every different mythos, event or detail must be individually vet each detail if you want to be thorough and do the research completely. It can be difficult and sometimes we all have to take a step back, take a few deep breaths and then take a fresh look at your current exegesis effort to find clarity when we are stuck at times. This is kind of why comparing these mythos with other mythos or allegories is. It an exact science. It take some practice, intuition, maybe a bit of luck and sometimes quite a few tries and attempts before we come up with a conclusion that logically, for the most part must represent the sought after answer at least to a reasonable degree. I mean, the Greek mythos could have been alien beings running around that folks were trying to define, but very probably not. Very probably, the Greek mythos were exactly what most think they were. Anthropomorphized deities whenever a new persona was needed to explain any given natural force, event and happening that we didn't understand or was significant enough that the masses demanded some kind of answer for. This is very probably why we ended up with mythos deities which seem to fit into natural roles very logically. Like the sea God and sky God or lightning God. This is also why these Greek mythos are probably the same personas, with different names, in the later Roman Empire. Maybe they even match some of the South American deities and even the ancient Japanese have a very similar system where they have defined spirits for all these different natural objects and events that we have been discovering had been so abstractly named. Once we understand our forefathers' needs to create, name and label an anthropomorphized persona for each and every unknown, powerful or scary natural event or process known in our current observations, then you can almost read all the obscure, abstract personified mythos for exactly what they are and you can almost see right through that foggy veil unto the truth just immediately behind it. It's. It an exact science, but I feel we have a pretty good grasp and the main just of what they were talking about and recording those many thousands of years ago. Getting tired so Im going to cut short the plethora of data ready in lieu of crashing out and grabbing some hard sleep; my eyes are burning so much now I starting to see tracers.... I think it's time for a nap. :) Great work and I'm very happy you are letting people know that the correlations do indeed exist, and the same persona with a few different names throughout antiquity is also entirely possible; but at the same time letting the folks know the caveats and downfalls that most fall into when making headway in the beginning. Each relationship and detail must be thoroughly vetted and studied because you will find more details sometimes to perfectly fit your assumed outcome and then sometimes you will find some hidden discrepancies that just blow the current hypothesis sky high. So it's not an exact science and the main part of it is digging up all the old material and all the different translation versions. Then you can compare the entire body of knowledge and compare the many versions and one might be able to find some clarity and illumination in doing so via comparing common denominators basically. I've always found the mythos correlations over different cultures and vast time gaps to be very enlightening and actually very fun and a prudent scholarly study. It's great when you find some previously unknown, at least unknown to you, direct correlations that will lead you to a major insight into our past. Then the light bulbs start turning on, metaphorically speaking in your minds eye, and the burning realizations that will don upon you when seeing this will be practical, easy to understand, and formidable understandings and awakenings. Once someone has studied this for themselves and sought out the correlations via their own hard work and taken the time to connect the dots themselves, it creates an enlightenment and inner power within you that will be with you forever. You will never forget your new revelations and all of it will lead you to a much deeper, truer, more intimate direct knowledge of the past and previous mysterious secrets become comprehended, powerful new factual tools in your scholastic mental portfolio or tools in your mental arsenal, symbolically speaking. Be careful though, long sought after truths and knowledge epiphanies as powerful as ones like these can be very fulfilling and can almost become an addiction. Before one knows it, they may turn into a knowledge hound seeking for long lost knowledge and ancient, barely known secrets; I'm being honest and the pursuit of ultimate knowledge can be very addictive. But, truthfully speaking, there are much worse things that you could be doing and much, much worse things that you could get addicted to. Before you know it, you might find yourself wanting to write your own book in the future containing your own personal revelations and individual findings. Heaven for bid that you might just end up doing something that you absolutely love in life and luckily finding yourself very successful silmultaneously. Once the ideas start flowing, I need to exert myself and hold myself in check to stop. I can literally keep writing forever; myself personally I have always had a very fond affinity for words, the written word, and the artistic usage capabilities of advanced grammar and sentence structure. I've just always been a pretty good writer and had an easy way with words, vocabulary and good timing. Anyway, this type of research is one of my favorite things to do, and there is still so much to be learned, discussed, agreed upon and further illuminated. Then finally comes the scientific papers, peer reviewed works and the attempt to provide enough solid data, metrics and evidence that your proposed idea, hypotheses or even theory can be put on the table for discussion within the top scientific circles, universities and companies with the ultimate hope that your hard work, diligent correlations and concise demonstration or explanation or your findings will result in a change or an addition to mainstream scientific views at the time! That's the ultimate feeling of fulfillment and a goal of those who correlate and perform exegesis in an attempt to make sense and bring some illumination and enlightenment out of the major debacles and shenanigans that are the current mainstream religions. The great work needs to be done and needs to continue. It will be this work that finally designates all mythos to possibly be of an historical, allegorical nature as well as it being this work that might help us rid ourselves of dogmatic superstitions, blind faith and innocent non free thinking folks being abused, lied to, and extorted from current religions. I guess that got a bit too long...... But the ideas start flowing and therefore the words start flowing next.... :) Ciao'
some parts the bible is false, the story of noah is the epic of gildemish. Moses has got to be the most obvious. she should have added in Krishna and Buddha.
Specific similarities to Greek mystery cults include: symbolism of 3, a passion struggle, communal meals, fictive kinship, afterlife with the deity. These are more than mere general similarities and certainly striking when most or all of those attributes appear. Glad to see that Justin martyr’s opinion was mentioned in this talk though. To her credit, there is a lot of inaccurate mythicism, a la bill mahr. She accuses others of intellectual dishonesty but her focus on the differences while failing to compare similarities is a striking round of cherry picking.
shut up... shes clearly a christian. Faith is ur proof. If you don't have it then you haven't been gifted the truth by God, not all people want to find God, and thus they never do.
I'm not a scholar and I didn't know this was an apologetics video, but I could tell multiple times where logic stopped & nitpicking started so as to justify Jesus' story not being pagan. Why anyone would use their brain and time to do this baffles me
It has been very difficult for me to understand why particularly Christians always try to rationalize their believe. If they say that they believe it on faith it would be also wrong but they are entitled to it. To pretend to invent false proves and convince others about it is dishonest and idiotic. What Mahr says it’s true, there are several myths very similar to Jesus’s which can have served as a base or example to create the Christian’s dogma.
I find it baffling that she can claim at 47:34 that Jesus has no struggle against Chaos; the whole point is to allegedly save man from an evil force that has threatened us since the dawn of time (because a rib woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating magical fruit). As for Salvation, other Pagan gods also promised it - by believing in them; namely Osiris and Zalmoxis. Seems to be a crapload of special pleading.
The fact that the details of previous myths are different from the Jesus myth does not mean his divine, virgin birth is the true one. The older myths are also different from each other. That doesn’t mean the last one was true until Jesus the person or the myth showed up on the scene. The general theme of a part God part human or god living in a human body is obvious. Arguing that the details are different is silly. Myths are never a carbon copy, unless you change your approach and start claiming that God copied previous myths to make the story more acceptable to people at that time. Guess what? That’s too far fetched and did not work either. Religious people can be very smart. However they alway base their arguments on the assumption that the text or story or law by their religion is a true message from God. So they spend their mental power defending what they believe. They hardly ever pause and question the absurdity of some or all of their beliefs in the face of science, history, common sense and actual mess each religion is today.
I used to be agnostic but then actually looked at the historical evidence for Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and found that to be compelling. That’s what I base my arguments on. I don’t see any critical historians corroborating the truth of any mythical story, which is why we call it myth. I do find critical scholarly historians who do find enough evidence for Jesus’ life and death and who will admit that something happened that caused his disciples to believe they saw him though they will not specify what that was because alternative explanations do not fit the data entirely. Clearly not everyone is compelled to believe, but that in itself is warrant enough to differentiate Jesus from literally every other supposed parallel story.
Well put. You said exactly what I have been saying for some time. I was a committed believer and Christian apologist for 3 decades. It was my study at the PhD level of ancient Mesopotamian/Babylonian/Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Second Temple literature that opened my eyes to the obvious humanly -derived character of the biblical material. None of the older myths are alike- none are copies but they all share unmistakable connections and borrowings and this includes the Bible. Christian apologists accept the assumption of divine origin of the writings and then set about using all their intellgience and schoarly acumen in defending that assumption. This material is all so old that there is always room to convince yourself of the Bible's uniqueness if you wish to bad enough( if you have enough faith?). But if you approach all the material with an open, sober mind, it is obvious that the Bible bears all the marks of being developed and changing over time. Does the stories and myths developing around the character of Jesus have any unique characteristics? Absolutely- as does the Osiris legends...as does the worship of Zeus as well as Zoroastroniaism. I attended an institution that stood as the center of a scholarly, learned defense of the innerancy and authority of Scripture. I arrived there fully believing those ideas; I left convinced they are untenable. I came to these conclusions kicking and screaming.
Lucifer Morningstar I thought it was interesting to learn that the fact that most historians think that the disciples were genuine in their belief that they had experienced the risen Christ. Is that untrue? If not, I don’t see how your point about the 18% is impactful. Unless you can show that the 18% are words that indicate that they would fooled into believing that he would rise from the dead falsely
She's using the Bible as evidence that Jesus existed? No? Really? So the Bible really is the inspired word of God. Nobody who has made a serious study of the New Testament can possibly believe this. There are more inconsistencies in the NT (between the Gospel writers) than there are words in the NT. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you watch some Bart Ehrman videos. I do not mean any offence to anyone who has a simple, devotional faith but really, this woman is no advocate for your cause.
PaulfrmTXtoCO That's actually true. Bart's view that Jesus existed is based on the same kind of baseless presupposition that most other scholars in the field hold - namely that there must be a historical core to the gospels. That's where all his information about the "historical Jesus" comes from. And it's not much either, the two things he considers established, mostly by comparing the gospels against each other(Because all other sources are so late that we can't rule out that they're just quoting the gospels), is that Jesus was baptized by John the baptist and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. In any case, if one uses a proper methodology and start investigating the question by reading the oldest writings first, the epistles, and don't inject later gospel-based myth into them, one reaches completely different conclusions.
"There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][12][nb 6][2]:168-173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.[15][nb 8][17][18][19] Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[20][21] "
There is almost no documentary evidence of the existence of Jesus. The only Roman who speaks of him at all is Josephus, who calls him The Christus and makes him almost a footnote. He wrote 90 years after the death of Jesus. Christians have to understand that their religion is faith based. They also have to understand that proving the historicity of Jesus, just as that of any first century man or woman, is next to impossible. If you try to prove his existence in any documentary way then you really are in for a rough ride (not least from people like me and people who know a lot more than I do. Bart Ehrman makes a claim that it is possible to prove that Jesus lived, and that some of the claims made for him by Christians may have some historical verisimilitude. I don't. on this occasion, agree with Bart. But my first comment, that the BIBLE can prove the existence of Jesus is preposterous.
Atheists have to understand that Atheism is faith based. "There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[33] Jesus is mentioned twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus." Josephus was a Jewish Historian that switched sides when he saw the Jews were loosing the war. Jesus was executed around 30 AD, Jeruselum fell around 70 AD, Josephus died 100 AD. Where you got 90 years is a mystery, unless you are saying he wrote it post mortem.
This view is only popular among Internet atheists, not credentialed scholars. Read, The Riddle of Resurrection, by Mettinger; The Gospel and the Greeks, by Nash; Shattering the Christ Myth, by Holding.
The problem with this observation is it's one sided in that clearly bits of the other stories are clearly used while omitted parts of those stories aren't included. The Roman king and Jesus leave the earth in a cloud. But in Jesus case the disciples were supposed to have witnessed this but it's not strongly suggested, this cloud would have had to have been large enough to attract attention as it touches the ground or was it just big enough for a passenger of one? Faith is good but it's not proof nor evidence...
Is anyone really saying worshiping Jesus is like worshipping Horis( sp?). The point being made is that Christianity has borrowed from earlier mythology for stories and the calendars. And that this borrowing makes Christian theology less valid in the real world of reason and rational thought.
Reason and rational thought. That's just the thing God told us not to do - think. Here here, Sir. The teachings in the Bible give us easy answers to eternal question, such as suffering. It goes like this... God is all powerful. God loves us. There is suffering because we won't or can't love him enough. And what's worse, because the coming of the Kingdom is imminent, we have no reason to try to end poverty or disease. Thank goodness, and thought, that the god of the Bible is now a complete irrelevance to the vast majority of people here in the UK. Sadly, I know they're a tougher nut to crack in the USA where, in all these years, there has never been an atheist President!
Obviously you're wrong, Christianity as no other religion in world history stands head and shoulders above any other religion or ideologies via manifest powers of the Holy Spirit that established Christ veracity as the son of God via miracles healing, signs and wonders that can be observed today accompanying Christ's anointed proclaiming Christ's Gospel of Spiritual and Moral Regeneration essential for entering the Kingdom of Heaven at life's end. In my life I've experienced many coincidences that appeared to connect one subject with another but in fact had no relations to the other subject matter whatsoever! Therefore the misleading conjectures in this video don't in any way impinge upon the veracity of Christianity or Christ's Gospel which is unlike any other ideology or message in world history evidence of its absolute divinely derived essence.
I'm not 'obviously' wrong, with great respect. The only source for the teachings of Christianity come from the Bible and that book's historicity is very open to question. Did you know that the story in John where Jesus asks those without sin to cast the first stone upon the wretched woman? It's a great and powerful story. But it doesn't appear in John for 800 years - it was a later addition. There are more inconsistencies in the NT than there are words in the NT. The Bible is fallible, is all I'm saying. Many Christians seem to disregard the OT God, these days and work on the basis of the teachings and miracles of Jesus. But why, then, do the Gospel writers mention some and not others. Why do Mark and John not mention the virgin birth at all? Why doesn't Paul? You can't seriously use the Bible as a test for the veracity of Jesus, let alone an all powerful God. I mean no disrespect by these comments. If you would like to debate these issues in a courteous and respectful manner, then I'll be happy to do so. All good wishes.
Your evidence you use has not been established as fact and its the only point of reference you have. The Bible needs to have at least three external references that can confirm to be true and they also have to be confirmed. So when someone says the Bible the Bible the Bible then ignorance shines through.
I love how she says you can't "Cherry Pick" certain aspects to support your position, right after that's exactly what she does. She says confirm your sources, then talks about what Luke wrote in his gospel, but we know that Luke couldn't have been the author. I guess you didn't confirm your source.
there are many differences in all these mythic stories. more interesting are the similarities the jesus stories are at least as incredible as the other myths. as i missing something? does the fact that these stories are not identical make the jesus stories believable somehow?
Such an important point. Differences vs similarities both are present. But that's the nature of the Beast. Myth evolves over a long length of time. That is the very nature of Mythology. Look at the Cinderella story and how it evolved over time they were both drastic differences and drastic similarities yes Scholars understand that this story changed and maintained over time. This professor smugly dismisses comparative mythology/religion. If this is so easily dismissed then why do college classes exist on this topic (comparative religion)?
It makes clear the fact that the authors of the New Testament believed that Jesus was a real person and not myth. Which when coupled with the fact that many of them died for the claim that they have seen the risen Christ, makes the “Jesus stories” much more believable than any myth.
@@ultrastar23 It is very clear in writings I have on my shelf right now such as Diodorus Siculus, Xenophon, Livy, etc that the most learned of people such as Alexander the Great believed firmly that the Oracle at Delphi was real. He believed it so much that he based his decision on whether to go to war on whatever message came out of the Oracle. He was hardly alone. A sober reading of the New Testament reveals an extraordinary amount of things people of that time firmly believed that we would discount today. It is yet another piece of evidence that these writings are constrained and limited to the worldview and knowledge of their time. One thing they certainly are not (whatever else they may be) is transcendent truth which is meant to speak authoritatively today and which we should base our lives and decisions on. After all, which interpretation would one go by on which particular passages?
I agree that you should read the stories. However, she failed to be specific. Please read the 197 footnotes to the Zeitgeist transcript and the 220 pager source guide. It would negligence to not try to understand how Zeitgeist got its ideas. This is important because I have not seen any debunking of Zeitgeist that looks at the source material. That is psychopathically toxic and deceptive. Note: Google the top 10 careers of a psychopath, #8 is Clergy. This should not be ignored.
Well this was a total waste of time as I suspected. I believe that this is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. no scholars are saying the stories are exact Or literary dependent just a fancy word for I don't wanna acknowledge the stories are the same, but there are in fact parallels to the Christian mythology and that is exactly what it is. There have been several dying and rising savior gods, there have been God's born of virgins, there have been gods that performed miracles water into wine had disciples and/or followers this is the same type of mythological structure as the Jesus mythology. I think not to acknowledge this is to be very intellectually Dishonest at best and at the worst this is a straight up lie to preserve the preferred delusion And/or mythology. Christianity has no more valid a a a claim than any other religion that has been made up by man it's literally a fairy tale it's nonsense.
Exactly. This woman was just another Christian who bases religious history on a King James Bible. That’s what Christians use to defend history. They read their Bible and think it’s history and to a large extent it’s not. Jesus may have existed historically yet there’s no secular evidence of that but he was a man that was born from a woman that had sex
@@Scorned405 totally false statement. Do you really believe it’s an actual debate amongst scholars, both secular and non secular, whether or not Jesus existed? It’s absolutely agreed upon that Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist, was a Jewish preacher/teacher, and was crucified by the Roman government.
@@MrDW-ei1fe Really? Look up Richard Carrier or DM Murdok or Joseph Atwill on RUclips. Richard Carrier holds very high credentials in historical research and he highly doubts Jesus existed. Christians don’t understand that the Bible is not a history book. It is a book of mythology. There was no Adam and Eve or Moses or Noah and may or may not have been a Jesus. If Jesus did exist he definitely was not born from a virgin or any of that. Learn what the Bible is. Look up some Richard Carrier
@@Scorned405 Richard carrier is not considered reliable in academia. In fact most scholars probably don’t even know who he is. Carrier borrows a ton of his ideas from Doherty who was thoroughly debunked. Doherty isn’t even considered reliable amongst Jesus mythicists. Opinions of DM Murdock are worse. She was even refuted by Carrier who you hold as a reputable source. There’s people out there, such as yourself, who claim Jesus to be a totally ahistorical person but that doesn’t make it a plausible point of view. The scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed and did what I referenced earlier.
If she was Honest , she wouldn't make up false things about Mithras, and leave out the undeniable proof that Constantine mixed it with Christianity, after his "Vision". All one would need to do is look at the history, and how the actual church started. She is using semantics, about Virgin Births and not being honest about why so many different religions ALL valued virgin births. The difference with Abrahamic religions, is that they don't only have a problem with births, but women altogether. According to the scripture that you believe. Innocent women are cursed by God with pain during childbirth and what they thought was a curse of bleeding. These were deluded and illiterates, Bronze age men , who were frightened by everything they didn't understand, especially women.
Well, an intelligent "neutral" observer would have to come to conclusion that Jesus was a myth. There well might have been a charismatic preacher that was the basis of the Gospel stories of Jesus but there certainly wasn't a person who went around performing miracles, walking on water and raising himself from the dead. Right? To believe that nonsense would be stupid. My first doubts about the Jesus story ( before I heard of the list of similarities between the Jesus story and earlier myths ) was that he was sent down to Earth as the promised Messiah but was almost totally rejected by the people he came to save. Now that is downright stupid. In fact , it was outside of the Holy lands where the Jesus, miracle maker, story caught on. And the disconnect between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament surely is further proof that the Jesus story is pure fabrication. The God of the Old Testament and Jesus have totally different philosophies. They were created by very different writers with very different agendas. And, we can only guess how much ancient texts were manipulated, altered and added to when the Romans oversaw the creation of the New Testament. And, I bet you, if an international panel of impartial wise men was assembled to look into the question of Jesus's authenticity, they would come to only one conclusion, and that is, based on evidence, there is no proof that the Jesus of the Bible ever existed. Now, why hasn't the BBC, for example, organised such a panel? It would make a great very watchable, and popular tv series. So why hasn't it happened? Why? Because they would be afraid of offending millions of Christians. To hell with the truth...just don't rock the boat.
How would a council of wise men disprove the gospel when you have thousands of years of intelligent theologians and new testament scholars that come to different conclusions. Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Lewis, Hildebrand, Wright. It seems like you find the NT impossible because you've already ruled out the possibility of miracles. If we are certain of naturalism and materialism, then yes the story of Jesus in the Bible is ridiculous, but why be so certain of that?
@@bman5257 But what did this scholars and theologians based their conclusions on? Old stories? Stories that look to modern eyes- free from a lifetime of indoctrination - like a cut and paste version of previous Godmen stories that EVERYONE now dismisses as nonsense. Look at the evidence - or lack of it - free yourself of indoctrination - and really use your brain.
Historians have looked at evidence during the time of Jesus. Not only writings from Jesus' followers, but also Roman leaders and philosophers. The man's existance and death from crucifixion are historical facts.
@@debbiefelts5640 No! Please, do your research! There is not ONE contemporary reference to Jesus during his supposed lifetime! Not one! I'm afraid you are just another brainwashed Christian.
@@musik102 Why would there be? There was no need to write down what happened until after His death/resurrection. You do realize that there are no contemporary references of Alexander the Great until the 2nd century right? I'm pretty sure you accept his existence.
I listened 5 minutes into this debate and only heard remarks on a person, personal opinions, name calling, jokes, and reiterations of what those people do. Not my idea of productive debate. Paused, disliked, bye.
MYTH IS actually a different way to convey truth. It is truth hidden or veiled in story. MYTH becomes an internal mirror by which we see ourselves. Myth has something to say to everyone, as it has something to say about everyone. To understand a myth is to understand ourselves. Christians get all defensive as if, when you say myth, it means it's not true. Myth transcends time and culture. It's a beautiful thing. The Bible book is a great piece of literary art. You have to learn HOW to read it. Read it literally and you end up with folly and lunacy. Understand it mystically and transform yourself and the world around you.
At 5:24 Mary says, "read the stories" I agree!!!! That is a really good idea. Check all the Zeitgeist Debunking videos and see how many of the Debunkers "read the stories" The Zeitgeist Transcript has 197 footnotes and there is a 220 page Zeitgeist Source Guide. I have watched many Zeitgeist debunking videos. How many are looking at the 197 footnotes and 220-page Source Guide? None.
Sharp dodges (or ignores) the striking similarities of other myths and focuses on pointing out the differences. The differences are a red herring. She talks about Mithras, Zeitgeist and Mahar, but ignores far better parallel mythic examples like Romulus and scholars such as Richard Carrier. She is like a science denier claiming evolution can't be true because of Piltdown man, while ignoring the millions of pieces of evidence that make the theory one of the best attested in all of science. This is why apologetics is inherently dishonest. It is a method of defending religious assertions by any means and against all contrary facts. It does not seek truth; it only attempts to defend faith.
How is it inherently dishonest to look at counter points/arguments investigate them and address the falsehoods and contradictions within them? If this lady is dishonest please elaborate on any dishonest remarks or points she made during this talk, with regards to other myths that you believe she ignored/dodged she stated clearly she could not possibly address every false comparison so she would deal with the most common ones, lastly conflating religious apologists with those who deny science is rather ridiculous was Issac Newton not a scientist? What about John Lennox? Also I think you will find many examples of science revaluating many scientific theories and amending them based on new evidence or a greater understanding of a situation due to new technology etc, where as Christianity has remained consistent since it's birth.
The comments of this video are a trip! I see one comment bring up Richard Carrier because they didn't bring up Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is not a Christian, but argues against Jesus being viewed as a mythical person. Thanks, Mrs. Sharp, for your work! Keep it up, Biola!
2 Peter that Mary cites as evidence that Peter and the disciples were eye witnesses wasn't written by Peter. It was unknown b y any Church leader before 200 AD It was a disputed text in Eusebius' opinion as late as 300 AD
You are right,Lady,Jesus is a diferent myth,You know that all myths are diferent,some are slightly different .Jesus is another myth.The problem is that you ,actually earn your income from the belief in the Jesus myth.
Ok, 1st Action read the stories: Was Horus born during the Winter Solstice [Christmas]? In the book, Osiris Death and Afterlife of a God, Bojana Mojsov says, “Theirs was the Savior Child of light, born at the winter solstice with the sun” (xii). Was Isis a Virgin? Mojsov says, “Isis came to be worshipped as the Primordial Virgin and their child as the Savior of the World” (xii). Was Osiris resurrected? Mojsov says, “Every year in the town of Abydos his death and resurrection after three days were celebrated in a publicly enacted passion play called the Mysteries of Osiris” (xii).
@@rdorleans6522 There is definitely historical evidence of Jesus. Not only from his followers, but from Romans and the religious leaders of the day who were against him. Every legitimate historian acknowledges that Jesus was a real person and he did die from crucifixion. Where current historians differ is whether His resurrection was real.
I don't agree with her. Pointing out the differences does not eliminate the possibility that Jesus is inspired by Horus. He can be a different version of Horus, Horus story retold, or simply Horus merged with a real guy and modified to be compatible with a specific context... etc. Elephant is not a table. Lets say that there is a parallel universe that has no elephants or tables or anything that has 4 legs. If a guy draws a picture of elephant and I know that his brother draw a picture of table before him then I think that he got inspired by the table. I can retell the story about the 12 quests of Hercules that happens in new York and encourages people to keep the world green. It would still be a myth if people start believing it. Improving a myth's world view and updating it with some historical events won't turn a myth into something else.
The thing you need to understand is that the Horus (pagan-parallel thesis) HAS BEEN REFUTED. It was popular in the early part of the 20th century, but today has been almost universally abandoned by scholars. The primary sources do NOT support the claims. Read "Shattering the Christ Myth," by Holding; and "The Gospel And the Greeks," by Nash.
Euthymios Valdez dude,do you expect me to read two books just for a trivial argument? Why don't you present me some of their arguments. I'm not claiming that Jesus is Horus. I'm saying that her arguments are not valid. Besides how can any scholar possible know that christian Romans simply didn't know the story of Horus and use it as a basis for Jesus. It is known that they changed the birth day of Sol Invictus into Christmas. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus#Sol_Invictus_and_Christianity_and_Judaism And if they've made up Jesus do you expect to find the proof in the documents? Christians could have easily manipulated the documents and they had the motivation to do so. It is said that if you don't consider the proof of Jesus as real proof then you should not consider the proof of Socrates as a real proof either. The difference is There was no reason for ancient scholars to make up Socrates but there was many motivations for them to forge proves about Jesus.
Fearofthemonster What Jew in their right mind would make up a crucified Messiah when no Jew at the time believed the Messiah would die? This was the biggest objection to Christian Jews by their Orthodox brethren. Jesus would have been more believable if he didn't get crucified. Also Jews believe that the Messiah is the physical seed of David and one who would conquer the gentiles militarily, which means he must be a human being in order to qualify as true Messiah! If you read the works of Josephus most people whom claimed to be the Messiah were physical human beings! So the Jews could have raised another objection that the Christian Messiah was a myth. Unfortunately there is no evidence of 1st century Jews raising the objection that Jesus was a myth. And don't even get me started on Gentiles. Who would make up a person that is only to be worshipped? This means you must defy the Roman gods and the Emperor (see Pliny the Younger's Letter to Trajan). You are basically asking for death at that point. So no, there isn't reason in making a mythical Messiah, especially based off of pagan deities which is another problem since Jews saw all pagan religions as myths.
LogosTheos People are making up stories for others or themselves to believe. They don't need to take the Horus story and change it consciously. Older stories can inspire new stories, sometimes without the author's knowledge. Why would they make up a story about a crucifiction? Maybe someone thought it would be a better story (for our sins he sacrificed himself). Maybe someone hated crucifiction for some reason and wanted to blame it. Maybe there was a guy who claimed to be a messiah and got crucified but his entire story is made up. It doesn't have to be a deliberate lie. It can be an anonymous story that is distorted by many people. "Unfortunately there is no evidence of 1st century Jews raising the objection that Jesus was a myth" So are you claiming that all of those jews actually knew jesus personally and witnessed his resurrection and this is the reason they didn't object? Why would they make up a story of a messiah? For power. No matter where you are, if people believe you are working for a god they will as you say. It was dangerous in a non-christian rome but it still granted power over other believers. Rome used Christianity for political reasons. who knows how much they've distorted the history. Besides, is this your argument? We don't know a good reason why would they lie so it must be truth?
As a Christian you believe in 3 things : 1. Jesus is God 2. Jesus is eternal 3. Jesus is the WORD or the LOGOS Therefor when God speaks in the old testament that's actually Jesus speaking. In the old testament, Gods WORD or Jesus, drowns, starves and burns to death around 25 million people. More than half were children under 15 years of age. How do Christians morally reconcile themselves to worship a deity who killed all those kids?
Not that Jesus & Horus "were the same" but look at the timeline. Look at the elements of the accounts of their lives and add logic and deductive reasoning.
Scholars are still not sure what the bible means by virgin birth so.. . . Why does she keep using the bible to prove itself? Can I use Comic Books to prove SpiderMan is real? I have video evidence also.
The 1st century Jews had absolutely no time for pagan gods. The tribes had fallen into idolatry time and time again. This lead to the dispersion of the Jews. They were hauled off into captivity. By the time the 1st century came around idolatry definitely was no longer a problem for the Jews. There is absolutely no way 1st century Judaism would put up with pagan gods being fed to them. The myth claim shows complete ignorance of the one proclaiming it. This claim was absolutely discredited a 100 years ago. Obviously atheist are running out of arguments when they need to recycle discredited arguments. Yep, atheism constantly displays a lack of thought.
***** Not only do you not provide sources all you are going on are wild assumptions on a topic that you clearly know little beyond the latest atheist hoopla on. So I will laugh at your ignorance and move on. There is absolutely no evidence that corresponds against the gospels being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The evidence against their authorship does not exist. Therefore if you are making a claim that they are anonymously written or written by another it is your responsibility to prove it. Where is your evidence? You are correct that the Jews were looking for a militaristic messiah. In fact the context of all four gospels testify to this. That is the reason for the Jewish rejection oif Christ. Obviously comprehending context is too hard for you. Also the reason why we find the gospels written in Greek is very easy to assess for a person who can think. Can you think? Can you add 2+2 and come up with 4? Let us look here. The Jews rejected Christ and the teaching about him so the apostles concentrated thier missionary work on the Gentiles who were Greek speakers. Hmmm I wonder why we find them in Greek. Anyone? Anyone? If I intend to reach German speaking people do I write my book in Chinese, anyone? anyone? We do not have the autographs so we do not know which language they were written in. What we do know is that even Jesus quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Your arguments about the earliest manuscripts being in Greek are pointless once you have an understanding of the history. Heck alot of this I could dispute with the use of the gospels themselves and the book of acts. Nice try. Once again pointless objections from the ignorant. Have a nice day. Now go write a award winning book in Japanese to reach and English audience. After all that is what you are expecting from the gospels.
Buster Banter Actually no it is not! We have eye witness testimony, what do you have? Nothing. I will take eye witness testimony over your foolishness. I can care less about proper spelling of Dan Brown novels.
Oh gosh, the comment section are clearly filled with RUclips atheist. People who would hate for anything she said to be True so rather trash it than consider the information.....
She ends with a quote of 1stTim 1:12-17. Well, the next chapter, 1stTim 2:11-12 says "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Ijs, are we to hold that verse in equal reverence??
That is a cultural teaching for that particular church in Ephesus....most Protestant Churches interpret that admonition for that time and place only......nice try though...
If you really think about it Christianity is polytheistic. God, Jesus, Satan, angels ... some major and some minor .... gods by another name .... but this is not a single character
do you hear yourself? The whole story is nonsense by any objective view Satan is a god in the mythical realm of Christianity. Not my issue if you have to twist yourself in knots to make it seem logical
vivahernando1 _"Is Satan not the god of evil?"_ Nope. According to the old testament, Yahweh is the creator of both good and evil. You could argue that Satan is an arch angel and custodian of evil if you will, but even that isn't really very biblical. His actual role is that of the "adversary", someone who argues with a ruler on behalf of views contrary to the ruler's decisions to make sure the ruler in fact has a sound case. See the story of Job for example. Not that Satan has much of a place in the bible anyway. Most of the bad stuff that happens in the bible happens as a result of Yahweh being unhappy with his creation, not because of Satan. By the way, if you want to argue that the bible is polytheistic, there are way better ways to do that. For example, pointing out that it acknowledges other deities such as Baal. Psalms also has a verse in which Yahweh is described as the greatest of the sons of El, so it's clear that Yahweh was regarded as part of a pantheon at one point.
vivahernando1 . Agree... And don't forget about the "Mother Mary," [almost the supreme deity in some cultures], and the many "saints," that foolhardy believers pray to constantly.
Eh what? Satans other name is Lucifer. What does that name mean? It means light. He was the highest angel and was instated to govern the light in the world. He then became arrogant and wanted to rise above his creator, so he fell and became Satan. He is not a God.
And people that don’t want to accept the fact that how could a story written thousands of years before a religion is even introduced , but somehow somebody starts it later.not saying Jesus didn’t exist but he did spend time in Egypt
Funny how Mary Jo Sharp supports the scriptures by violating its commands and laws. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." 1 Corinthians 14:34 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12
Chic UK You don't know Jesus Christ did anything. There are no extra biblical sources outside the Bible. The Bible is nothing more than a story book. The Bible also talks about magical incantation spells, talking snakes, burning witches and false prophets, 42 children being ripped apart by bears and describes a zombie apocalypse in which the dead bodies of the saints got up out of their graves. There are many different accounts of the resurrection that all contradict each other. The Bible is less credible than the National Inquirer. Why do you believe anything the Bible says? Why do you believe anyone needs "Salvation"?
Chic UK So... did God change his mind about what was "moral"? You can't have an "inspired word of God"... but the first half was wrong because it would mean that God is wrong.
I don't understand how showing where they are *different* necessarily means that borrowing isn't happening, which seems to be the major premise of this argument. Uniqueness does not add veracity.
LMAO, What a joke.. Can she prove that ANYONE in her book of fables, not just Jesus really existed.. So Paul said this or that. Can she prove that Paul the "con-vert", existed., Would not a WISE, ALL POWERFUL GOD, see all these misconceptions coming, and avoid these religious confusions?
The way that we know that is by listening to another fairy-tale figure in Trix the rabbit. Who said Trix are for kids. Magic does not exist boys and girls, sorry to burst your adult adolescences but it's time to grow out of fairy-tales.
no apparently not, lol. but you forget God has a choice too, his attributes does not necessarily constrain him into finite decisions. God can choose to troll humans like I choose to troll religious nutbags.
I hope you realize that the Jesus mythicist view is the real joke. I hope you one day realize that. It is silly, please study historical Jesus scholarship and just know they until you study you will be laughed at by historians
Also it is hillarious that you question even the existence of Paul. I love it when atheists say things like that. It shows you are not "led by the evidence" as you so proudly claim. Please excuse the laughter as your statement is a joke like saying "prove that the Apollo moon landings were real" ridiculous
How 'bout this: There's not ONE single word or mention about Christ during the life of his alleged life and after approx: 20 yrs. Not one single person, historian, philosopher or any kingdom made a single comment about this Christ claiming to be God...which of course would've meant his death immediately...not 3 yrs later. Not ONE word by anyone. You should probably think. Try to use "subjective" view points and research instead of "subjective" view points and research. This ain't rocket science but a Christian surely treats it as such.
False claim ‘not one word’ 👈🏻you failed in your opening statement There are actual many non Christian Roman sources Even the colosseum still exists Where they put Christians to death you can take a plane there right now
Christianity is an amalgamation of roman literature and the cycles of our sun, these astrological stories were a way for early people to know the seasons and times of our year, today's christian bible is just a modern form of the same metaphor told over and over again with different details by different people... today's bible was written to seem like a literal story but in fact is simply a metaphor just like all of its early predecessors... no amount of belief will ever change truth.
Of course there are differences but the parallels are the solidity of the claim. Jesus was a triune creation of the pagan in the Council of Nicea. The trinity was a pagan concept and the biblical authors took from their pagan ancestors to form this new belief. Abraham was a Chaldean, sweetheart.
It's clear that she is desperately trying to defend her faith, but is not providing any actual sources. As strange as it might sound, the mythical Jesus theory is a very creditable theory with plenty of supporting evidence. I highly recommend Richard Carrier for more information on this theory. As a whole, whether or not Jesus existed is a frivolous endeavour when the main ideology of Christianity is entirely fruitless (which is the case of most religions).
![Curt Thompson: The Neurobiology of Shame [Torrey 2016]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vdnVgKxhCxY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Michael Ward: Silent Witness - The Horse and His Boy Sixty Years On [Torrey Honors Lecture]](/img/1.gif)
Its weird, I am an atheist and I have never heard this comparison until a christian friend asked me if thought it was true. I told him I don't know anything about it so Id have to learn more. I asked another atheist friend her opinion and so she showed me some videos. However she didn't have any archeological sources, nor any sources that were of actual academic merit. And she got very frustrated with me because I wasn't convinced. I am a skeptic so I don't want to just believe Jesus is based on other mythological figures without legitimate sources. I need to hear what Christian Experts are saying as well before I draw any conclusions, so thank you for posting the video.
So whats your conclusion son?
@@kingchakazulu7762 I can't find anything proving Christ actually existed but the overwhelming historian say he most probably did so I think he did. I don't know enough about archeology so I have to go with the experts on this one.
@@phillipwilson8973, You didn't need to reply, I knew you were undercover religious from your original comment, smh.
@@kingchakazulu7762 Well since I have your attention let me tell you about Jesus
Ms. Sharp has focused on the disparities in the pagan myths rather than the common themes found between paganism and Christianity. If Christianity really did use the pagan themes of 'virgin birth', 'dying and rising gods', and 'resurrection' to formulate a new religion, would it use the exact accounts about the pagan gods, or would it use the basic themes and change them up to be something newer and better? The common themes are obviously there.
One major concept in Christianity that I think is more paganistic than not is the idea of a god who would require a human sacrifice in order for his creations to be reconciled to him. And what kind of god would give his creations their 'free will' to make a choice as to whether or not to believe that, and then punish them by burning them alive forever if they don't? Sounds like a pagan god to me.
As to whether or not the 'Jesus story' fits with other pagan stories, of course it does. Isn't man trying once again to use religion to manipulate a god? If you believe and live a good life, you'll be rewarded. If you don't, you'll be punished. What's the difference? The only one I can see is that Christianity will burn you forever if you don't believe it.
Lol
Well said. Males created god in their own images.
@@traigounregalo OK. Tell me about the new heaven and the new Earth, and The God outside the Universe. And about jesus returning and believers having glorified bodies in the new creation.
Well the fact that there’s free will… and with that free will we are given truth. God sending his son to die for us so that we can go back to him, and a lot of times, we try to justify by ending it at the death of his son, but we forget he resurrected. The point is that we no longer have to be afraid of death, because Jesus Christ Coquered death for us, and made a way for us to come to life after death. And to blame God that if we don’t choose him, we burn for eternity, is highly illogical because he’s giving us the free choice!?!? if we choose that path then that’s us in our ignorance and selfishness. That selfish mindset is gonna get you there. But choosing to know your creator is building the foundation of a relationship so that you can inherit what she has for you. But if you just want what is of this world then that’s what you are going to get. You’re going to get nothing. We already know you die you can’t take any riches or anything in this earth with you. So you live a life of vanity. But he made a Way so that you choose life of a fulfillment, because he is the fulfillment.
Might as well said the Bible is true because it says it's true and that's why the gospels aren't a myth. The more she tried to make her case, the more mythical it sounded.
yeah that exactly virgin birth a common myth, ressurection a common myth but jesus was different. it all sounded mythical to me
I have never understood why there are so few women Christian apologists. It's great to see Mary Jo!
Yesica1993 she awesome
because many churches and denominations don't allow women to speak in church
Read the bible, your question has an answer. But you named christains have turned from gods word so there no chance for the truth...
@@sci8911 they Come from a rib
@@6969smurfy god does not have a word or sentences.
"Just because an elephant has four legs doesn't make it a table."
I love this quote because it's exactly what is going on when people want to compare myths with the story of Jesus. The stories are completely different but people want to hang onto virgin birth.
The virgin birth may be a mistranslation in Greek. The ancient Greek word for virgin and "young girl" are very similar. An early scribe of the text could easily make an error as they are perceived as one and the same.
@@cvf628 Well, what's the alternative? God, must have had physical sex with Mary. With her permission, I hope, or that would have been rape!
@@musik102 The alternative would have been that as a "young girl" she had sex with her husband, Joseph.
You assumed that God is a male with a penis. Why? If there is but the one god then it would not need either a penis or a vagina as it wouldn't need to pee or procreate.
If God did come to earth, then and impregnated Mary then he would be both the father and the son. The son having sex with his mother?
Another alternative would be rape. But if Joseph believed she was unfaithful he could have her drink a concoction to abort the child. ( Numbers 5:11-31). There are about ten references to God sanctifying the killing of unborn children in the Bible.
Now out of those alternatives which one seems the most plausible to you?
.
@@cvf628 The most plausible is the story is a copy of a pagan myth
@@AAwildeone The Virgin Birth of Jesus is the doctrine that Jesus was conceived and born by his mother Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit and without sexual intercourse with her husband Joseph. The Orthodox churches accept it as authoritative by reason of its inclusion in the Nicene Creed centuries later, the Catholic church likewise holds it authoritative for faith through the Apostles' Creed as well as the Nicene, and Protestants regard it as an explanation of the mixture of the human and divine natures of Jesus; but although it has clear scriptural backing in two gospels, the consensus of modern scholars is that its historical foundations are very flimsy.
The Bible doesn't say Mary was a virgin. Mary and Joseph were already married before God decided to lend his seed. Like most young couples they were likely humping like rabbits before God gave her his seed. All that Mary remembers is that the night before she went to a party and met both Bill Cosby and God.
And I would like to point out that at no time did God contribute financially to the upbringing of that child. God was the original dead beat dad.
She talks about Luke…she’s an educator and talking about the importance of primary sources and yet she doesn’t mention that all the gospels were written by UNKNOWN authors.
Her first few minutes is a PERFECT example of atheist apologetics. You can’t use the Bible to prove your points. It’s circular logic and it doesn’t work. It’d “for the Bible told me so.” I’d like to see her debate Dr. Richard Carrier, he’d wipe the floor with her.
Richard Carrier? Who is that? Oh, you mean that atheist historian who got his ass handed to him in a debate with William Lane Craig on the resurrection (he admitted that he lost)?
Also, is that the same guy that Pastor Damon Richardson "wiped the floor with" in their debate on the historical Jesus?
Yeah, that guy. Whatever happens to the boy? Poor fella ain't been the same since.
All well and good Mary Jo, please explain Christmas Day and Easter holidays. Are those Christian or Pagan Holidays?
From under the sheep's wool of rationality, this video reveals itself as more apologetics.
This a great video! It is a truly great comparison between the pagan myths and the Biblical Gospel. Well done!
I have read both the stories of Jesus and Osiris. Both have stories of a death and resurrection after 3 days. Try reading Bojana Mojsov "Osiris Death and After life of a God.
If you want to see the astronomy for both Osiris and Jesus, then watch the interview I did with Jan Irving from Gnostic Media. The title of the video is:
Astrotheology: Fact or Fiction?
If you are looking for the truth and you watch my video, then come back an listing to Mary Jo, you will either laugh your ass off or weep in disgust. LOL
Orion is the constellation that represents the Egyptian God Osiris. The astrological Cross that Jesus is crucified on is also Orion. The 3 belt stars make the middle of the cross and the shoulder star Betelgeuse is the top of the cross and the Rigel is the bottom of the cross. Skull Hill is the Winter Triangle, which is the stars, Betelgeuse, Procyon and Sirius.
When the cross goes below the horizon in the west, Ophiuchus (the coffin) or tomb rises in the east. This happens exactly at 6am on Dec. 21st (the Winter Solstice) when the Sun is dead for 3 days and then resurrects.
Osiris and Jesus has the same story and the same, exact astronomy.
Oh, Mary Jo, how are you going to act? LOL
@Ra Mabus She has to keep people in the darkness. That is how it works. YOu wrote your comments seven years ago. Now people are more aware of christianity and how Constatine has used it .
What?
Eyewitnesses of Christ’s Glory 3:21 -- 2 Peter 1 (NRSV): 16 For we did not follow *cleverly* *devised* *myths* when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been *eyewitnesses* of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 *We* *ourselves* *heard* this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain....
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
2 Peter 2
.....there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
From "God's Infallible Word"
by David Bernard
"The Bible sometimes alludes to scientific truths unknown to ancient societies, such as the following: the life-sustaining role of blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:14); the vital role of the heart in blood circulation (Proverbs 14:30); the earth’s hanging in outer space (Job 26:7); the roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22); the immense number of stars, far more than the eye can see (Genesis 22:17); humans being made of the same elements as the earth (Genesis 2:7); global wind circuits (Ecclesiastes 1:6); the hydrologic cycle, in which rain on land originates in water evaporated from the ocean (Ecclesiastes 1:7); and air as having weight (Job 28:25). The roundness and rotation of the earth are implied by Christ’s statement that at the time of His return nighttime and daytime activities will be taking place simultaneously (Luke 17:34-36).
The Bible alludes to the two laws of thermodynamics, the two most fundamental principles of modern science. The first law says that the total quantity of energy in the universe (including matter) is constant; that is, it is being neither created nor destroyed. (See Genesis 2:2-3; Hebrews 1:3.) The second law says that the universe is continually becoming more disorderly; that is, entropy (disorder or unavailable energy) is increasing. (See Genesis 3:17-19; Psalm 102:25-26; Romans 8:20-22.) And, as Henry Morris has explained, these two laws point to the truth of creation by God:
The first law of thermodynamics, states . . . that
none of the tremendous energy (or “power”) of the
universe is now being created, so that the universe
could not have created itself. The second law . . .
states that the available energy of the universe is
decreasing, indicating that sometime in the past all
the energy (including matter) was available and per-
fectly organized, like a clock that had just been wound
up. This shows that the universe must have been cre-
ated, even though it could not create itself. The two
laws thus point inexorably back to Gen. 1:1."
(BORROWED FROM sIR rEG)
This lady is "Cherry Picking " mythological stories to point out that these specific stories do not conform to the stories in the NT about Jesus. However, there are plenty instances in the culture present in the tme of Jesus to indicate that the NT is filled (not only) with mythology, but actual lies about what is said in the OT text in an attempt by the Church to prove that their doctrine(s) regarding Jesus and the Trinity are true. Some examples:
-- Many of the kings and Gods of that time period were said to be born of human virgins. That is, born of females that were virgins (usually impregnated by one of the pagan Gods), not of mythological "monsters" or by anything other than a natural birth process.
-- The NT gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a SIGN that he was divine. What is a sign? It is something that you can see (for example the sign of the rainbow given to Noah). How do you look at a woman and see that she is a virgin? You can't. Even if you were present when a woman is giving birth, can you tell that this is a virgin birth, certainly not. So, claiming a "virgin birth" as a "sign" is not valid. Also, the NT is supposedly based on the OT and should conform to the OT in every way. It does not! There is no text in the OT supporting a virgin birth of a Messiah!
-- We do not know who wrote the books of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The authors listed for these stories were assigned by the Catholic Church based on the fact that these people were traditionally thought to be the authors, but there is nothing in the ending of each of these stories that state "Yours Truly, Mark/Matthew/Luke/John", respectively. Also, you might note that Matthew talks of himself in the third person as "Mathew said that..."; in the book of John, he states that what he is relating was from someone else. Last, but not least, the NT states that the followers of Jesus were illiterate (as were 99% of the population of that day), so they could not read or write!
-- The "Trinity" is not a devine declaration by GOD. In fact, it is not mentioned in the bible at all. It was decided that Jesus would be one part of a 3-PART GOD HEAD by men who gathered together at the council of nicaea in the year 325 CE. This is nothing more than idol worshiping!
-- The resurrection narrative - this story did not/could not have happened. The whole story is fiction, a plot devise by the authors. The authors needed a plot device so that someone would supposedly go to the tomb and find it empty demonstrating that Jesus had risen. This is the fictional story that they came up with. Whar proves this? Number one, if you look at the places in the NT where the text talks of this particular story, there is a vast difference of how many people came to the tomb, and how many angels were seen, and where the angels were sitting/standing when discovered, etc. However, I am willing to overlook these discrepancies as each Author may have just (supposedly) seen (and told) the story from their own perssonal perspective and this may have accounted for these (wide ranging) differences. But, delve a little deeper and this story of the resurection falls apart. Why did the women go to the tomb? Answer: to bring spices to put on the body of Jesus. STOP RIGHT THERE! At that time, spices were put on a body immediately after death to cover/hide the order of decaying/decomposing flesh (today, refrigeration is used to accomplish this). People who might wish to view the body would then be able to do so w/o having to tolerate that terrible odor. SO THE FIRST PROBLEM with the story is that the women were bringing spices to put on the body of Jesus 3 days after his death. Jesus lived in an area of the world where the climate was warm/hot. Three days after he died, the odor of his decomposition would have been overwhelming to say the least. Also, there was absolutely no reason for anyone to prepare and put spices on a body after it was already buried/entombed. THE SECOND PROBLEM is even more serious. The Jewish religion has very strict rules about the separation of the sexes. In those days (as it is even today), when a man dies (and before hs burial), his body is washed and cleansed by a group of males to show respect for the vessel that once held his Godly soul. When a woman dies, this is also done, but by a group of females. NEVER would a deceased male be "treated/handled" by a group of women, and NEVER would a deceased female be "treated/handled" by a group of males. It would be a gigantic sin/sacrilege. However, according to the NT, here we have female(s) coming to the tomb 3 days after the "burial" to put spices on the body of Jesus. A body that is by now well into the stages of decomposition and (no doubt) bloated - the smell alone would have been horiffic. Not only were they wanting to unnessarily add these spices to a 3-day old dead body, but that body would not have been considered fully dressed. In fact, with only a thin covering, the body would have been considered (at least) partially nude. So, to summarise, here in this fictional story, we have very religious jewish women bring spices to put on the 3-day-old rotting body of Jesus who is only partly dressed. IT DID NOT HAPPEN, IT IS A FAIRYTAIL IN A FICTITIOUS STORY TRYING TO SHOW THAT JESUS HAD RISEN. IF THIS STORY IS FICTITOUS AND IF IT DID NOT OCCUR (AND BOTH OF THESE "IF" STATEMENTS ARE DEFINITELY TRUE), THEN THERE WAS NO RESURRECTION. IT IS A FAIRY TALE. If Jesus existed at all, he is not mentioned in any historical books of that day outside the NT. If Jesus did exist, he was a man far removed from the drivel that the NT wants Christians to believe about his existence. RETURN TO THE ONE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB. DO NOT FOLLOW THE FALSE GODS AND TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH!
Thanks for this!
Jesus is a historical figure look up Josephus, Tacitus, there are more examples.
I wish she would do a book-length treatment of this topic
Awesome presentation, thank you
People are still arguing a fictional book.
Perhaps, all of history is fictional from that warped perspective. Perhaps, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates never existed. Perhaps, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Abe Lincoln are all made-up, fictional characters. Your logic, or the lack thereof, is thoroughly, absurd.
@@IbanezArtist85
You sound hurt ...
In school, on my way to my MA in Comparative Religion, I was taught these ideas as the contrast between Cosmological and Radical Monotheistic religions. One represents the cycles of nature of which we are part of and which can be manipulated through magic and rituals; the latter (radical Monotheism) claims a Being, totally transcendent and other, Who has a plan and goal which unfolds through time and space. In the latter also, magic is viewed negatively as the attempt to manipulate God.
She said the truth at 9:49, "...you need to check other sources.." I have found no other sources that say Jesus was Jesus accept one book. the bible.
Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius ... 3 contemporaries that mention Jesus, plus 4 Gospel authors in the Bible. 7 contemporaries, 4 pro and 3 against Jesus.
Do you realize the Bible is a book of multiple sources?
If I blind myself with cynicism I can protect myself from the inconvenient responsibility of the truth.
Ohhh, so all the other sons of god that died and brought back to life in 3 days before the Jesus story are all wrong but your version of the same story was the correct one? Makes total sense!
Sol Nox Mercurius they aren’t the same though.. do you know all the stories? One example is that Horus was chopped up and scattered all about the place and Isis went and got his reproductive organs and inseminated herself and the child that was born from that was Osiris and believed to be an ‘incarnation’ (not resurrected) and every pharaoh after that was believed to be another incarnation of Horus.
Now that’s very different indeed from the story of Jesus isn’t it. That’s just the first Horus one.. There are actuall historical accounts from Emperors and scribes that Jesus or Yahweh did actually live and was executed.. U see the powers that be, the ruling elite of that time, the ones that don’t want their little worker bees (us) to be spiritually awakened and in harmony with the earth knew about these pagan stories so they would have added or omitted parts to suit themselves and their own gain to keep us lot bamboozled but they couldn’t completely cover up the fact that Jesus actually lived
Steve Carroll is that from you? The quote
Ok, the Bible is considered a text when it comes to asserting whether he existed or not. The lecture IS NOT designed to prove Jesus was divine, it's intended to debunk the pagan similarity to Jesus argument. So all you people saying she is using her religious texts to prove her religion DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE LECTURE. Religious texts are totally acceptable when attempting to establish the historicity of a figure. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE between doing historical scholarship and engaging in apologetics. Religious texts are clearly used extensively by historians to answer factual questions about history.
LET ME REPEAT: THIS VIDEO IS ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS AND THE DISSIMILARITIES BETWEN JESUS AND CONTEMPORANEOUS PAGAN MYTHS. This isn't trying to prove Jesus was God.
If you can't understand that distinction you need to do some more schooling.
It occurs to me that this discipline of Christian Apologetics is based on a pretty literal interpretation of the Bible and with the exception of the extraordinarily biased does not take into account Archaeological and Historical evidence. For starts, I have become sceptical that a place called Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus. Therefore what was the purpose of these after the fact mythological accounts called the Gospels?
It would be good listening to prof. Bart Ehrman, Dr. Richard Carrier, Mythvision.
As usual, when confronted with anything that questions the authenticity of the Christ narrative the bible is the proof used to refute. Outside of the religious community that doesn't pass the laugh test.
Agreed. When the "evidence" this professor turns to is chapter so-and-so of one of Paul's letters, we know we're in trouble.
She's not exactly correct in her mythos and gods details, but no one is 100% correct all the time regarding the mythos. She's right, they change and morph over time as well as having different schools of thought and different translation versions. I have 3 different versions of the Papyrus of Ani, or the book of going forth by day alone. It's an important work and the versions are quite different. And I think it's safe to say that the original 68 commandments found in the old Torah came directly from the Egyptian book of the dead and the declarative statements one dictates to all the gods after ones death. If I remember correctly, it's either spell 124 or 128 in the Papyrus of Ani. So the commandments are a pretty direct plagurizarion. It's also safe to say that the genesis recounting was a direct retelling of the Enuma Elish, or the 7 tablets of creation in the museums under the babylonian/sumerian/Mesopotamian exhibits. Also, I think it's furthermore safe to say that the deluge epic in the bible is another direct retelling of the Atra Hasis epic; yet another Sumerian/babylonian recorded work. Not much of the bible is original except some of the retelling attempts in the New Testament when they had to insert words in a Jesus' mouth who never could have spoke those words. If the persona even existed as a man in human form, it's very probable it's from a much older time and that persona has become a prototype for many personas after it and in the bible. Isn't the Old Testament Joseph even yet another matching persona of this savior archetype prototype? Osiris and Isis were the ruling gods of dynastic Egypt for most of the time and Horus was their son; and possibly our sun as well. Horus does have many similar parallels with Jesus and a few differences. And I believe more similarities exist with the Zoroastrian Mithra. None of the translated mythos are quite an exact science. There are differences and minor discrepancies just depending upon which books you choose to get and who did the bulk of the translations. E Wallis Budge, etc as well as many other translation versions. There are many versions for every mythos now, which adds layers of obscurity and obfuscation to the entire process of attempting to elaborate on the mythos attempting to morph them into allegorical historical stories. Anthropomorphized gods created to explain natural events and forces before we properly understood them sounds completely logical to me and I would think would be an inevitable growing step in humanities' growth and understanding. Doing this is sometimes a very difficult and almost impossible task without having to make some judgement calls and a few choices along the way. Like she said, there are many different versions for each individual mythos or event. So this means that she is right and each and every different mythos, event or detail must be individually vet each detail if you want to be thorough and do the research completely. It can be difficult and sometimes we all have to take a step back, take a few deep breaths and then take a fresh look at your current exegesis effort to find clarity when we are stuck at times. This is kind of why comparing these mythos with other mythos or allegories is. It an exact science. It take some practice, intuition, maybe a bit of luck and sometimes quite a few tries and attempts before we come up with a conclusion that logically, for the most part must represent the sought after answer at least to a reasonable degree. I mean, the Greek mythos could have been alien beings running around that folks were trying to define, but very probably not. Very probably, the Greek mythos were exactly what most think they were. Anthropomorphized deities whenever a new persona was needed to explain any given natural force, event and happening that we didn't understand or was significant enough that the masses demanded some kind of answer for. This is very probably why we ended up with mythos deities which seem to fit into natural roles very logically. Like the sea God and sky God or lightning God. This is also why these Greek mythos are probably the same personas, with different names, in the later Roman Empire. Maybe they even match some of the South American deities and even the ancient Japanese have a very similar system where they have defined spirits for all these different natural objects and events that we have been discovering had been so abstractly named. Once we understand our forefathers' needs to create, name and label an anthropomorphized persona for each and every unknown, powerful or scary natural event or process known in our current observations, then you can almost read all the obscure, abstract personified mythos for exactly what they are and you can almost see right through that foggy veil unto the truth just immediately behind it. It's. It an exact science, but I feel we have a pretty good grasp and the main just of what they were talking about and recording those many thousands of years ago. Getting tired so Im going to cut short the plethora of data ready in lieu of crashing out and grabbing some hard sleep; my eyes are burning so much now I starting to see tracers.... I think it's time for a nap. :)
Great work and I'm very happy you are letting people know that the correlations do indeed exist, and the same persona with a few different names throughout antiquity is also entirely possible; but at the same time letting the folks know the caveats and downfalls that most fall into when making headway in the beginning. Each relationship and detail must be thoroughly vetted and studied because you will find more details sometimes to perfectly fit your assumed outcome and then sometimes you will find some hidden discrepancies that just blow the current hypothesis sky high. So it's not an exact science and the main part of it is digging up all the old material and all the different translation versions. Then you can compare the entire body of knowledge and compare the many versions and one might be able to find some clarity and illumination in doing so via comparing common denominators basically. I've always found the mythos correlations over different cultures and vast time gaps to be very enlightening and actually very fun and a prudent scholarly study. It's great when you find some previously unknown, at least unknown to you, direct correlations that will lead you to a major insight into our past. Then the light bulbs start turning on, metaphorically speaking in your minds eye, and the burning realizations that will don upon you when seeing this will be practical, easy to understand, and formidable understandings and awakenings. Once someone has studied this for themselves and sought out the correlations via their own hard work and taken the time to connect the dots themselves, it creates an enlightenment and inner power within you that will be with you forever. You will never forget your new revelations and all of it will lead you to a much deeper, truer, more intimate direct knowledge of the past and previous mysterious secrets become comprehended, powerful new factual tools in your scholastic mental portfolio or tools in your mental arsenal, symbolically speaking. Be careful though, long sought after truths and knowledge epiphanies as powerful as ones like these can be very fulfilling and can almost become an addiction. Before one knows it, they may turn into a knowledge hound seeking for long lost knowledge and ancient, barely known secrets; I'm being honest and the pursuit of ultimate knowledge can be very addictive. But, truthfully speaking, there are much worse things that you could be doing and much, much worse things that you could get addicted to. Before you know it, you might find yourself wanting to write your own book in the future containing your own personal revelations and individual findings. Heaven for bid that you might just end up doing something that you absolutely love in life and luckily finding yourself very successful silmultaneously. Once the ideas start flowing, I need to exert myself and hold myself in check to stop. I can literally keep writing forever; myself personally I have always had a very fond affinity for words, the written word, and the artistic usage capabilities of advanced grammar and sentence structure. I've just always been a pretty good writer and had an easy way with words, vocabulary and good timing. Anyway, this type of research is one of my favorite things to do, and there is still so much to be learned, discussed, agreed upon and further illuminated. Then finally comes the scientific papers, peer reviewed works and the attempt to provide enough solid data, metrics and evidence that your proposed idea, hypotheses or even theory can be put on the table for discussion within the top scientific circles, universities and companies with the ultimate hope that your hard work, diligent correlations and concise demonstration or explanation or your findings will result in a change or an addition to mainstream scientific views at the time! That's the ultimate feeling of fulfillment and a goal of those who correlate and perform exegesis in an attempt to make sense and bring some illumination and enlightenment out of the major debacles and shenanigans that are the current mainstream religions. The great work needs to be done and needs to continue. It will be this work that finally designates all mythos to possibly be of an historical, allegorical nature as well as it being this work that might help us rid ourselves of dogmatic superstitions, blind faith and innocent non free thinking folks being abused, lied to, and extorted from current religions.
I guess that got a bit too long...... But the ideas start flowing and therefore the words start flowing next.... :)
Ciao'
some parts the bible is false, the story of noah is the epic of gildemish. Moses has got to be the most obvious. she should have added in Krishna and Buddha.
Specific similarities to Greek mystery cults include: symbolism of 3, a passion struggle, communal meals, fictive kinship, afterlife with the deity. These are more than mere general similarities and certainly striking when most or all of those attributes appear. Glad to see that Justin martyr’s opinion was mentioned in this talk though. To her credit, there is a lot of inaccurate mythicism, a la bill mahr.
She accuses others of intellectual dishonesty but her focus on the differences while failing to compare similarities is a striking round of cherry picking.
She keeps quoting the Bible to prove her point. Who was the Bible's source? Who were the Gospels. Proving myth with fiction is just plain folly.
shut up... shes clearly a christian. Faith is ur proof. If you don't have it then you haven't been gifted the truth by God, not all people want to find God, and thus they never do.
I'm not a scholar and I didn't know this was an apologetics video, but I could tell multiple times where logic stopped & nitpicking started so as to justify Jesus' story not being pagan. Why anyone would use their brain and time to do this baffles me
It has been very difficult for me to understand why particularly Christians always try to rationalize their believe. If they say that they believe it on faith it would be also wrong but they are entitled to it. To pretend to invent false proves and convince others about it is dishonest and idiotic. What Mahr says it’s true, there are several myths very similar to Jesus’s which can have served as a base or example to create the Christian’s dogma.
A general rule of religions and philosophies is that everything is a remix. Christianity is no exception.
New wine in old bottles
Thanks so much for sharing these lectures.
I find it baffling that she can claim at 47:34 that Jesus has no struggle against Chaos; the whole point is to allegedly save man from an evil force that has threatened us since the dawn of time (because a rib woman was tricked by a talking snake into eating magical fruit).
As for Salvation, other Pagan gods also promised it - by believing in them; namely Osiris and Zalmoxis.
Seems to be a crapload of special pleading.
Ms Sharp please post the outline that you are speaking from so your RUclips audience can follow your teaching.
The fact that the details of previous myths are different from the Jesus myth does not mean his divine, virgin birth is the true one.
The older myths are also different from each other. That doesn’t mean the last one was true until Jesus the person or the myth showed up on the scene.
The general theme of a part God part human or god living in a human body is obvious.
Arguing that the details are different is silly. Myths are never a carbon copy, unless you change your approach and start claiming that God copied previous myths to make the story more acceptable to people at that time. Guess what? That’s too far fetched and did not work either.
Religious people can be very smart. However they alway base their arguments on the assumption that the text or story or law by their religion is a true message from God. So they spend their mental power defending what they believe.
They hardly ever pause and question the absurdity of some or all of their beliefs in the face of science, history, common sense and actual mess each religion is today.
I used to be agnostic but then actually looked at the historical evidence for Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and found that to be compelling. That’s what I base my arguments on. I don’t see any critical historians corroborating the truth of any mythical story, which is why we call it myth. I do find critical scholarly historians who do find enough evidence for Jesus’ life and death and who will admit that something happened that caused his disciples to believe they saw him though they will not specify what that was because alternative explanations do not fit the data entirely. Clearly not everyone is compelled to believe, but that in itself is warrant enough to differentiate Jesus from literally every other supposed parallel story.
Well put. You said exactly what I have been saying for some time. I was a committed believer and Christian apologist for 3 decades. It was my study at the PhD level of ancient Mesopotamian/Babylonian/Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Second Temple literature that opened my eyes to the obvious humanly -derived character of the biblical material.
None of the older myths are alike- none are copies but they all share unmistakable connections and borrowings and this includes the Bible.
Christian apologists accept the assumption of divine origin of the writings and then set about using all their intellgience and schoarly acumen in defending that assumption. This material is all so old that there is always room to convince yourself of the Bible's uniqueness if you wish to bad enough( if you have enough faith?). But if you approach all the material with an open, sober mind, it is obvious that the Bible bears all the marks of being developed and changing over time.
Does the stories and myths developing around the character of Jesus have any unique characteristics? Absolutely- as does the Osiris legends...as does the worship of Zeus as well as Zoroastroniaism.
I attended an institution that stood as the center of a scholarly, learned defense of the innerancy and authority of Scripture. I arrived there fully believing those ideas; I left convinced they are untenable. I came to these conclusions kicking and screaming.
Lucifer Morningstar I thought it was interesting to learn that the fact that most historians think that the disciples were genuine in their belief that they had experienced the risen Christ. Is that untrue? If not, I don’t see how your point about the 18% is impactful. Unless you can show that the 18% are words that indicate that they would fooled into believing that he would rise from the dead falsely
She's using the Bible as evidence that Jesus existed? No? Really? So the Bible really is the inspired word of God. Nobody who has made a serious study of the New Testament can possibly believe this. There are more inconsistencies in the NT (between the Gospel writers) than there are words in the NT. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you watch some Bart Ehrman videos. I do not mean any offence to anyone who has a simple, devotional faith but really, this woman is no advocate for your cause.
Try looking at Bart's earlier videos, he denies his own words in the later versions.
PaulfrmTXtoCO That's actually true. Bart's view that Jesus existed is based on the same kind of baseless presupposition that most other scholars in the field hold - namely that there must be a historical core to the gospels. That's where all his information about the "historical Jesus" comes from.
And it's not much either, the two things he considers established, mostly by comparing the gospels against each other(Because all other sources are so late that we can't rule out that they're just quoting the gospels), is that Jesus was baptized by John the baptist and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
In any case, if one uses a proper methodology and start investigating the question by reading the oldest writings first, the epistles, and don't inject later gospel-based myth into them, one reaches completely different conclusions.
"There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][12][nb 6][2]:168-173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.[15][nb 8][17][18][19] Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[20][21] "
There is almost no documentary evidence of the existence of Jesus. The only Roman who speaks of him at all is Josephus, who calls him The Christus and makes him almost a footnote. He wrote 90 years after the death of Jesus.
Christians have to understand that their religion is faith based. They also have to understand that proving the historicity of Jesus, just as that of any first century man or woman, is next to impossible. If you try to prove his existence in any documentary way then you really are in for a rough ride (not least from people like me and people who know a lot more than I do.
Bart Ehrman makes a claim that it is possible to prove that Jesus lived, and that some of the claims made for him by Christians may have some historical verisimilitude. I don't. on this occasion, agree with Bart.
But my first comment, that the BIBLE can prove the existence of Jesus is preposterous.
Atheists have to understand that Atheism is faith based.
"There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[33] Jesus is mentioned twice in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and once in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus."
Josephus was a Jewish Historian that switched sides when he saw the Jews were loosing the war. Jesus was executed around 30 AD, Jeruselum fell around 70 AD, Josephus died 100 AD. Where you got 90 years is a mystery, unless you are saying he wrote it post mortem.
Best case Scenario for the Bible is it the book of people that believe in a religion that was a myth and wrote about their belief in the myth
You sure seem to be one-sided. Maybe try praying to the flying spaghetti monsters. Only he can cure you from the affliction of mythology
This view is only popular among Internet atheists, not credentialed scholars. Read, The Riddle of Resurrection, by Mettinger; The Gospel and the Greeks, by Nash; Shattering the Christ Myth, by Holding.
I love this, keep up the good work!🙏
The problem with this observation is it's one sided in that clearly bits of the other stories are clearly used while omitted parts of those stories aren't included. The Roman king and Jesus leave the earth in a cloud. But in Jesus case the disciples were supposed to have witnessed this but it's not strongly suggested, this cloud would have had to have been large enough to attract attention as it touches the ground or was it just big enough for a passenger of one? Faith is good but it's not proof nor evidence...
Is anyone really saying worshiping Jesus is like worshipping Horis( sp?).
The point being made is that Christianity has borrowed from earlier mythology for stories and the calendars. And that this borrowing makes Christian theology less valid in the real world of reason and rational thought.
Reason and rational thought. That's just the thing God told us not to do - think. Here here, Sir. The teachings in the Bible give us easy answers to eternal question, such as suffering. It goes like this... God is all powerful. God loves us. There is suffering because we won't or can't love him enough. And what's worse, because the coming of the Kingdom is imminent, we have no reason to try to end poverty or disease. Thank goodness, and thought, that the god of the Bible is now a complete irrelevance to the vast majority of people here in the UK. Sadly, I know they're a tougher nut to crack in the USA where, in all these years, there has never been an atheist President!
Obviously you're wrong, Christianity as no other religion in world history stands head and shoulders above any other religion or ideologies via manifest powers of the Holy Spirit that established Christ veracity as the son of God via miracles healing, signs and wonders that can be observed today accompanying Christ's anointed proclaiming Christ's Gospel of Spiritual and Moral Regeneration essential for entering the Kingdom of Heaven at life's end.
In my life I've experienced many coincidences that appeared to connect one subject with another but in fact had no relations to the other subject matter whatsoever! Therefore the misleading conjectures in this video don't in any way impinge upon the veracity of Christianity or Christ's Gospel which is unlike any other ideology or message in world history evidence of its absolute divinely derived essence.
I'm not 'obviously' wrong, with great respect. The only source for the teachings of Christianity come from the Bible and that book's historicity is very open to question. Did you know that the story in John where Jesus asks those without sin to cast the first stone upon the wretched woman? It's a great and powerful story. But it doesn't appear in John for 800 years - it was a later addition. There are more inconsistencies in the NT than there are words in the NT.
The Bible is fallible, is all I'm saying. Many Christians seem to disregard the OT God, these days and work on the basis of the teachings and miracles of Jesus. But why, then, do the Gospel writers mention some and not others. Why do Mark and John not mention the virgin birth at all? Why doesn't Paul? You can't seriously use the Bible as a test for the veracity of Jesus, let alone an all powerful God.
I mean no disrespect by these comments. If you would like to debate these issues in a courteous and respectful manner, then I'll be happy to do so.
All good wishes.
ComposerInUK sorry, but you are wrong on more points than the words in your post.
PaulfrmTXtoCO That made me smile, genuinely :)
Your evidence you use has not been established as fact and its the only point of reference you have. The Bible needs to have at least three external references that can confirm to be true and they also have to be confirmed. So when someone says the Bible the Bible the Bible then ignorance shines through.
I love how she says you can't "Cherry Pick" certain aspects to support your position, right after that's exactly what she does. She says confirm your sources, then talks about what Luke wrote in his gospel, but we know that Luke couldn't have been the author. I guess you didn't confirm your source.
Thank you for all that you do, Mary Jo! Grateful! #Gal220
there are many differences in all these mythic stories. more interesting are the similarities
the jesus stories are at least as incredible as the other myths.
as i missing something?
does the fact that these stories are not identical make the jesus stories believable somehow?
Such an important point. Differences vs similarities both are present. But that's the nature of the Beast. Myth evolves over a long length of time. That is the very nature of Mythology. Look at the Cinderella story and how it evolved over time they were both drastic differences and drastic similarities yes Scholars understand that this story changed and maintained over time. This professor smugly dismisses comparative mythology/religion. If this is so easily dismissed then why do college classes exist on this topic (comparative religion)?
It makes clear the fact that the authors of the New Testament believed that Jesus was a real person and not myth. Which when coupled with the fact that many of them died for the claim that they have seen the risen Christ, makes the “Jesus stories” much more believable than any myth.
@@ultrastar23 It is very clear in writings I have on my shelf right now such as Diodorus Siculus, Xenophon, Livy, etc that the most learned of people such as Alexander the Great believed firmly that the Oracle at Delphi was real. He believed it so much that he based his decision on whether to go to war on whatever message came out of the Oracle. He was hardly alone.
A sober reading of the New Testament reveals an extraordinary amount of things people of that time firmly believed that we would discount today. It is yet another piece of evidence that these writings are constrained and limited to the worldview and knowledge of their time. One thing they certainly are not (whatever else they may be) is transcendent truth which is meant to speak authoritatively today and which we should base our lives and decisions on. After all, which interpretation would one go by on which particular passages?
8:24 So she is using the Bible to prove Jesus historicity?
Isn't that like asking Lois Lane if Superman is real?
This is awesome! We really needed a video like this on youtube!
I agree that you should read the stories.
However, she failed to be specific.
Please read the 197 footnotes to the Zeitgeist transcript and the 220 pager source guide.
It would negligence to not try to understand how Zeitgeist got its ideas.
This is important because I have not seen any debunking of Zeitgeist that looks at the source material. That is psychopathically toxic and deceptive.
Note: Google the top 10 careers of a psychopath, #8 is Clergy. This should not be ignored.
Well this was a total waste of time as I suspected. I believe that this is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. no scholars are saying the stories are exact Or literary dependent just a fancy word for I don't wanna acknowledge the stories are the same, but there are in fact parallels to the Christian mythology and that is exactly what it is. There have been several dying and rising savior gods, there have been God's born of virgins, there have been gods that performed miracles water into wine had disciples and/or followers this is the same type of mythological structure as the Jesus mythology. I think not to acknowledge this is to be very intellectually Dishonest at best and at the worst this is a straight up lie to preserve the preferred delusion And/or mythology. Christianity has no more valid a a a claim than any other religion that has been made up by man it's literally a fairy tale it's nonsense.
Not forgetting also mimesis! Thanks for the review. I won't waste my time then
Exactly. This woman was just another Christian who bases religious history on a King James Bible. That’s what Christians use to defend history. They read their Bible and think it’s history and to a large extent it’s not. Jesus may have existed historically yet there’s no secular evidence of that but he was a man that was born from a woman that had sex
@@Scorned405 totally false statement. Do you really believe it’s an actual debate amongst scholars, both secular and non secular, whether or not Jesus existed? It’s absolutely agreed upon that Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist, was a Jewish preacher/teacher, and was crucified by the Roman government.
@@MrDW-ei1fe Really? Look up Richard Carrier or DM Murdok or Joseph Atwill on RUclips. Richard Carrier holds very high credentials in historical research and he highly doubts Jesus existed. Christians don’t understand that the Bible is not a history book. It is a book of mythology. There was no Adam and Eve or Moses or Noah and may or may not have been a Jesus. If Jesus did exist he definitely was not born from a virgin or any of that. Learn what the Bible is. Look up some Richard Carrier
@@Scorned405 Richard carrier is not considered reliable in academia. In fact most scholars probably don’t even know who he is. Carrier borrows a ton of his ideas from Doherty who was thoroughly debunked. Doherty isn’t even considered reliable amongst Jesus mythicists. Opinions of DM Murdock are worse. She was even refuted by Carrier who you hold as a reputable source.
There’s people out there, such as yourself, who claim Jesus to be a totally ahistorical person but that doesn’t make it a plausible point of view. The scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed and did what I referenced earlier.
If she was Honest , she wouldn't make up false things about Mithras, and leave out the undeniable proof that Constantine mixed it with Christianity, after his "Vision". All one would need to do is look at the history, and how the actual church started. She is using semantics, about Virgin Births and not being honest about why so many different religions ALL valued virgin births. The difference with Abrahamic religions, is that they don't only have a problem with births, but women altogether. According to the scripture that you believe. Innocent women are cursed by God with pain during childbirth and what they thought was a curse of bleeding. These were deluded and illiterates, Bronze age men , who were frightened by everything they didn't understand, especially women.
Well, an intelligent "neutral" observer would have to come to conclusion that Jesus was a myth.
There well might have been a charismatic preacher that was the basis of the Gospel stories of Jesus but there certainly wasn't a person who went around performing miracles, walking on water and raising himself from the dead. Right? To believe that nonsense would be stupid.
My first doubts about the Jesus story ( before I heard of the list of similarities between the Jesus story and earlier myths ) was that he was sent down to Earth as the promised Messiah but was almost totally rejected by the people he came to save. Now that is downright stupid.
In fact , it was outside of the Holy lands where the Jesus, miracle maker, story caught on.
And the disconnect between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament surely is further proof that the Jesus story is pure fabrication. The God of the Old Testament and Jesus have totally different philosophies. They were created by very different writers with very different agendas.
And, we can only guess how much ancient texts were manipulated, altered and added to when the Romans oversaw the creation of the New Testament.
And, I bet you, if an international panel of impartial wise men was assembled to look into the question of Jesus's authenticity, they would come to only one conclusion, and that is, based on evidence, there is no proof that the Jesus of the Bible ever existed.
Now, why hasn't the BBC, for example, organised such a panel? It would make a great very watchable, and popular tv series. So why hasn't it happened?
Why? Because they would be afraid of offending millions of Christians. To hell with the truth...just don't rock the boat.
How would a council of wise men disprove the gospel when you have thousands of years of intelligent theologians and new testament scholars that come to different conclusions. Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Lewis, Hildebrand, Wright. It seems like you find the NT impossible because you've already ruled out the possibility of miracles. If we are certain of naturalism and materialism, then yes the story of Jesus in the Bible is ridiculous, but why be so certain of that?
@@bman5257 But what did this scholars and theologians based their conclusions on? Old stories? Stories that look to modern eyes- free from a lifetime of indoctrination - like a cut and paste version of previous Godmen stories that EVERYONE now dismisses as nonsense. Look at the evidence - or lack of it - free yourself of indoctrination - and really use your brain.
Historians have looked at evidence during the time of Jesus. Not only writings from Jesus' followers, but also Roman leaders and philosophers. The man's existance and death from crucifixion are historical facts.
@@debbiefelts5640 No! Please, do your research! There is not ONE contemporary reference to Jesus during his supposed lifetime! Not one! I'm afraid you are just another brainwashed Christian.
@@musik102 Why would there be? There was no need to write down what happened until after His death/resurrection. You do realize that there are no contemporary references of Alexander the Great until the 2nd century right? I'm pretty sure you accept his existence.
is there a transcript?
I listened 5 minutes into this debate and only heard remarks on a person, personal opinions, name calling, jokes, and reiterations of what those people do. Not my idea of productive debate. Paused, disliked, bye.
Bye
You're describing the comments section
MYTH IS actually a different way to convey truth. It is truth hidden or veiled in story. MYTH becomes an internal mirror by which we see ourselves. Myth has something to say to everyone, as it has something to say about everyone. To understand a myth is to understand ourselves.
Christians get all defensive as if, when you say myth, it means it's not true. Myth transcends time and culture. It's a beautiful thing. The Bible book is a great piece of literary art. You have to learn HOW to read it. Read it literally and you end up with folly and lunacy. Understand it mystically and transform yourself and the world around you.
At 5:24 Mary says, "read the stories"
I agree!!!!
That is a really good idea.
Check all the Zeitgeist Debunking videos and see how many of the Debunkers "read the stories"
The Zeitgeist Transcript has 197 footnotes and there is a 220 page Zeitgeist Source Guide.
I have watched many Zeitgeist debunking videos.
How many are looking at the 197 footnotes and 220-page Source Guide? None.
who is this soccer mom. i think dawkins or hitchens would rip her apart.
Sharp dodges (or ignores) the striking similarities of other myths and focuses on pointing out the differences. The differences are a red herring. She talks about Mithras, Zeitgeist and Mahar, but ignores far better parallel mythic examples like Romulus and scholars such as Richard Carrier.
She is like a science denier claiming evolution can't be true because of Piltdown man, while ignoring the millions of pieces of evidence that make the theory one of the best attested in all of science.
This is why apologetics is inherently dishonest. It is a method of defending religious assertions by any means and against all contrary facts. It does not seek truth; it only attempts to defend faith.
How is evolution theory the best attested theory of all time? Where are you getting this idea?
How is it inherently dishonest to look at counter points/arguments investigate them and address the falsehoods and contradictions within them? If this lady is dishonest please elaborate on any dishonest remarks or points she made during this talk, with regards to other myths that you believe she ignored/dodged she stated clearly she could not possibly address every false comparison so she would deal with the most common ones, lastly conflating religious apologists with those who deny science is rather ridiculous was Issac Newton not a scientist? What about John Lennox? Also I think you will find many examples of science revaluating many scientific theories and amending them based on new evidence or a greater understanding of a situation due to new technology etc, where as Christianity has remained consistent since it's birth.
Wow! I wish this person understood the concept of a circular argument! Danny Crockarell
The comments of this video are a trip! I see one comment bring up Richard Carrier because they didn't bring up Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is not a Christian, but argues against Jesus being viewed as a mythical person.
Thanks, Mrs. Sharp, for your work! Keep it up, Biola!
2 Peter that Mary cites as evidence that Peter and the disciples were eye witnesses wasn't written by Peter. It was unknown b y any Church leader before 200 AD It was a disputed text in Eusebius' opinion as late as 300 AD
You are right,Lady,Jesus is a diferent myth,You know that all myths are diferent,some are slightly different .Jesus is another myth.The problem is that you ,actually earn your income from the belief in the Jesus myth.
Ok,
1st Action read the stories:
Was Horus born during the Winter Solstice [Christmas]?
In the book, Osiris Death and Afterlife of a God, Bojana Mojsov says, “Theirs was the Savior Child of light, born at the winter solstice with the sun” (xii).
Was Isis a Virgin?
Mojsov says, “Isis came to be worshipped as the Primordial Virgin and their child as the Savior of the World” (xii).
Was Osiris resurrected?
Mojsov says, “Every year in the town of Abydos his death and resurrection after three days were celebrated in a publicly enacted passion play called the Mysteries of Osiris” (xii).
Jesus is just another Joseph Smith, separated by time.
Fascinating comparison. Please elaborate
Except there is actual evidence Smith was a real person. Court records, birth and death records, eyewitnesses, etc. None of the Jeebus. None.
@@rdorleans6522 There is definitely historical evidence of Jesus. Not only from his followers, but from Romans and the religious leaders of the day who were against him. Every legitimate historian acknowledges that Jesus was a real person and he did die from crucifixion. Where current historians differ is whether His resurrection was real.
So I was on the fence about giving my life to Jesus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now that I know the truth, ALL HAIL FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!
I don't agree with her. Pointing out the differences does not eliminate the possibility that Jesus is inspired by Horus. He can be a different version of Horus, Horus story retold, or simply Horus merged with a real guy and modified to be compatible with a specific context... etc.
Elephant is not a table. Lets say that there is a parallel universe that has no elephants or tables or anything that has 4 legs. If a guy draws a picture of elephant and I know that his brother draw a picture of table before him then I think that he got inspired by the table.
I can retell the story about the 12 quests of Hercules that happens in new York and encourages people to keep the world green. It would still be a myth if people start believing it.
Improving a myth's world view and updating it with some historical events won't turn a myth into something else.
The thing you need to understand is that the Horus (pagan-parallel thesis) HAS BEEN REFUTED. It was popular in the early part of the 20th century, but today has been almost universally abandoned by scholars. The primary sources do NOT support the claims. Read "Shattering the Christ Myth," by Holding; and "The Gospel And the Greeks," by Nash.
Euthymios Valdez He ain't gonna read those books.
Euthymios Valdez dude,do you expect me to read two books just for a trivial argument? Why don't you present me some of their arguments.
I'm not claiming that Jesus is Horus. I'm saying that her arguments are not valid.
Besides how can any scholar possible know that christian Romans simply didn't know the story of Horus and use it as a basis for Jesus. It is known that they changed the birth day of Sol Invictus into Christmas.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus#Sol_Invictus_and_Christianity_and_Judaism
And if they've made up Jesus do you expect to find the proof in the documents? Christians could have easily manipulated the documents and they had the motivation to do so. It is said that if you don't consider the proof of Jesus as real proof then you should not consider the proof of Socrates as a real proof either. The difference is There was no reason for ancient scholars to make up Socrates but there was many motivations for them to forge proves about Jesus.
Fearofthemonster What Jew in their right mind would make up a crucified Messiah when no Jew at the time believed the Messiah would die? This was the biggest objection to Christian Jews by their Orthodox brethren. Jesus would have been more believable if he didn't get crucified. Also Jews believe that the Messiah is the physical seed of David and one who would conquer the gentiles militarily, which means he must be a human being in order to qualify as true Messiah! If you read the works of Josephus most people whom claimed to be the Messiah were physical human beings! So the Jews could have raised another objection that the Christian Messiah was a myth. Unfortunately there is no evidence of 1st century Jews raising the objection that Jesus was a myth. And don't even get me started on Gentiles. Who would make up a person that is only to be worshipped? This means you must defy the Roman gods and the Emperor (see Pliny the Younger's Letter to Trajan). You are basically asking for death at that point. So no, there isn't reason in making a mythical Messiah, especially based off of pagan deities which is another problem since Jews saw all pagan religions as myths.
LogosTheos People are making up stories for others or themselves to believe. They don't need to take the Horus story and change it consciously. Older stories can inspire new stories, sometimes without the author's knowledge.
Why would they make up a story about a crucifiction? Maybe someone thought it would be a better story (for our sins he sacrificed himself). Maybe someone hated crucifiction for some reason and wanted to blame it. Maybe there was a guy who claimed to be a messiah and got crucified but his entire story is made up. It doesn't have to be a deliberate lie. It can be an anonymous story that is distorted by many people.
"Unfortunately there is no evidence of 1st century Jews raising the objection that Jesus was a myth"
So are you claiming that all of those jews actually knew jesus personally and witnessed his resurrection and this is the reason they didn't object?
Why would they make up a story of a messiah? For power. No matter where you are, if people believe you are working for a god they will as you say. It was dangerous in a non-christian rome but it still granted power over other believers. Rome used Christianity for political reasons. who knows how much they've distorted the history.
Besides, is this your argument? We don't know a good reason why would they lie so it must be truth?
As a Christian you believe in 3 things :
1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is eternal
3. Jesus is the WORD or the LOGOS
Therefor when God speaks in the old testament that's actually Jesus speaking.
In the old testament, Gods WORD or Jesus, drowns, starves and burns to death around 25 million people.
More than half were children under 15 years of age.
How do Christians morally reconcile themselves to worship a deity who killed all those kids?
Amazing. I'm from Brazil. This channel is very nice. we need more apologists like Mary
Not that Jesus & Horus "were the same" but look at the timeline. Look at the elements of the accounts of their lives and add logic and deductive reasoning.
amazing!!! thank you mary our lord jesus bless you
Scholars are still not sure what the bible means by virgin birth so.. . .
Why does she keep using the bible to prove itself? Can I use Comic Books to prove SpiderMan is real? I have video evidence also.
The 1st century Jews had absolutely no time for pagan gods. The tribes had fallen into idolatry time and time again. This lead to the dispersion of the Jews. They were hauled off into captivity. By the time the 1st century came around idolatry definitely was no longer a problem for the Jews. There is absolutely no way 1st century Judaism would put up with pagan gods being fed to them. The myth claim shows complete ignorance of the one proclaiming it. This claim was absolutely discredited a 100 years ago. Obviously atheist are running out of arguments when they need to recycle discredited arguments. Yep, atheism constantly displays a lack of thought.
*****
I notice a complete absence of sources.
*****
Not only do you not provide sources all you are going on are wild assumptions on a topic that you clearly know little beyond the latest atheist hoopla on. So I will laugh at your ignorance and move on. There is absolutely no evidence that corresponds against the gospels being written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The evidence against their authorship does not exist. Therefore if you are making a claim that they are anonymously written or written by another it is your responsibility to prove it. Where is your evidence?
You are correct that the Jews were looking for a militaristic messiah. In fact the context of all four gospels testify to this. That is the reason for the Jewish rejection oif Christ. Obviously comprehending context is too hard for you.
Also the reason why we find the gospels written in Greek is very easy to assess for a person who can think. Can you think? Can you add 2+2 and come up with 4? Let us look here. The Jews rejected Christ and the teaching about him so the apostles concentrated thier missionary work on the Gentiles who were Greek speakers. Hmmm I wonder why we find them in Greek. Anyone? Anyone? If I intend to reach German speaking people do I write my book in Chinese, anyone? anyone? We do not have the autographs so we do not know which language they were written in. What we do know is that even Jesus quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Your arguments about the earliest manuscripts being in Greek are pointless once you have an understanding of the history. Heck alot of this I could dispute with the use of the gospels themselves and the book of acts. Nice try. Once again pointless objections from the ignorant. Have a nice day. Now go write a award winning book in Japanese to reach and English audience. After all that is what you are expecting from the gospels.
*****
Well, I will leave you to you Divinci Code Myth
William Spencer
The Da Vinci (notice the correct spelling ace) Code must be a myth because the story of Jesus Christ is a myth.
Buster Banter
Actually no it is not! We have eye witness testimony, what do you have? Nothing. I will take eye witness testimony over your foolishness. I can care less about proper spelling of Dan Brown novels.
Oh gosh, the comment section are clearly filled with RUclips atheist. People who would hate for anything she said to be True so rather trash it than consider the information.....
Well this was awful. This didn't help you people at all.
I thought Paul forbid women to teach, I guess she must suffer from severe cognitve dissonance at some point.
... in a church setting. Long-distance, consequence-free, extra-contextual hole-poking at it's finest. Congratulations.
he said not to speak but in that church women were gossiping alot
She ends with a quote of 1stTim 1:12-17. Well, the next chapter, 1stTim 2:11-12 says "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Ijs, are we to hold that verse in equal reverence??
That is a cultural teaching for that particular church in Ephesus....most Protestant Churches interpret that admonition for that time and place only......nice try though...
Key word: interpret.
Funny thing is that the other myth are just as believable as Jesus.
Actually no they are not
Ah, Biola University is a Christian university so no bias there…🤦♀️
If you really think about it Christianity is polytheistic. God, Jesus, Satan, angels ... some major and some minor .... gods by another name .... but this is not a single character
***** Is Satan not the god of evil? I mean it's all junk to me but these characters would be considered gods in any other religion.
do you hear yourself? The whole story is nonsense by any objective view Satan is a god in the mythical realm of Christianity. Not my issue if you have to twist yourself in knots to make it seem logical
vivahernando1 _"Is Satan not the god of evil?"_
Nope. According to the old testament, Yahweh is the creator of both good and evil. You could argue that Satan is an arch angel and custodian of evil if you will, but even that isn't really very biblical. His actual role is that of the "adversary", someone who argues with a ruler on behalf of views contrary to the ruler's decisions to make sure the ruler in fact has a sound case. See the story of Job for example. Not that Satan has much of a place in the bible anyway. Most of the bad stuff that happens in the bible happens as a result of Yahweh being unhappy with his creation, not because of Satan.
By the way, if you want to argue that the bible is polytheistic, there are way better ways to do that. For example, pointing out that it acknowledges other deities such as Baal. Psalms also has a verse in which Yahweh is described as the greatest of the sons of El, so it's clear that Yahweh was regarded as part of a pantheon at one point.
vivahernando1 . Agree... And don't forget about the "Mother Mary," [almost the supreme deity in some cultures], and the many "saints," that foolhardy believers pray to constantly.
Eh what? Satans other name is Lucifer. What does that name mean? It means light. He was the highest angel and was instated to govern the light in the world. He then became arrogant and wanted to rise above his creator, so he fell and became Satan. He is not a God.
Why is this not being taught in church? We are not equiping the saints!
she's kinda cute tho ......... i imagine that if she showed up at my door i'd let her spew her nonsense .......... i love my sin
This is a sadly simplistic take on this important issues. The speaker obviously did not take her research seriously.
Next up Richard Carrier....
The point is, what is your 'vested interested' in the proposition?
I notice she wisely stays away from Richard Carrier's work on Jesus.
Not showing the visual presentation impedes our ability to appreciate this lecture.
I believe in the sun of god which dies for 3 days in December then starts rising back up after the third day
You are lying
And people that don’t want to accept the fact that how could a story written thousands of years before a religion is even introduced , but somehow somebody starts it later.not saying Jesus didn’t exist but he did spend time in Egypt
This video is hilarious.
Funny how Mary Jo Sharp supports the scriptures by violating its commands and laws.
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." 1 Corinthians 14:34
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:12
biblically speaking you are correct and how christians hate it when their own book is quoted against them.
And yet, Mary went with the Apostles and taught with them. Only Paul seemed to have that objection.
Chic UK
You don't know Jesus Christ did anything. There are no extra biblical sources outside the Bible. The Bible is nothing more than a story book.
The Bible also talks about magical incantation spells, talking snakes, burning witches and false prophets, 42 children being ripped apart by bears and describes a zombie apocalypse in which the dead bodies of the saints got up out of their graves. There are many different accounts of the resurrection that all contradict each other. The Bible is less credible than the National Inquirer. Why do you believe anything the Bible says?
Why do you believe anyone needs "Salvation"?
Chic UK
So... did God change his mind about what was "moral"? You can't have an "inspired word of God"... but the first half was wrong because it would mean that God is wrong.
but Paul won the arguement..is his words dominating the new testament.
Yog-Sothoth Rules!
I don't understand how showing where they are *different* necessarily means that borrowing isn't happening, which seems to be the major premise of this argument. Uniqueness does not add veracity.
Jebus was a myth, grow up
I stopped waching after she said cherry picking.
That what people of faith do ,is cherry pick.
LMAO, What a joke.. Can she prove that ANYONE in her book of fables, not just Jesus really existed.. So Paul said this or that. Can she prove that Paul the "con-vert", existed.,
Would not a WISE, ALL POWERFUL GOD, see all these misconceptions coming, and avoid these religious confusions?
The way that we know that is by listening to another fairy-tale figure in Trix the rabbit. Who said Trix are for kids. Magic does not exist boys and girls, sorry to burst your adult adolescences but it's time to grow out of fairy-tales.
no apparently not, lol. but you forget God has a choice too, his attributes does not necessarily constrain him into finite decisions. God can choose to troll humans like I choose to troll religious nutbags.
I hope you realize that the Jesus mythicist view is the real joke. I hope you one day realize that. It is silly, please study historical Jesus scholarship and just know they until you study you will be laughed at by historians
Also it is hillarious that you question even the existence of Paul. I love it when atheists say things like that. It shows you are not "led by the evidence" as you so proudly claim. Please excuse the laughter as your statement is a joke like saying "prove that the Apollo moon landings were real" ridiculous
***** I'm sorry, did I miss something? Which Historians mentioned Jesus?
Just because an elephant has 4 legs doesn't make it a table.
Off course Jesus existed, it says so in the bible.
check mate atheists...
How 'bout this: There's not ONE single word or mention about Christ during the life of his alleged life and after approx: 20 yrs. Not one single person, historian, philosopher or any kingdom made a single comment about this Christ claiming to be God...which of course would've meant his death immediately...not 3 yrs later. Not ONE word by anyone. You should probably think. Try to use "subjective" view points and research instead of "subjective" view points and research. This ain't rocket science but a Christian surely treats it as such.
False claim
‘not one word’ 👈🏻you failed in your opening statement
There are actual many non Christian Roman sources
Even the colosseum still exists
Where they put Christians to death you can take a plane there right now
Christianity is an amalgamation of roman literature and the cycles of our sun, these astrological stories were a way for early people to know the seasons and times of our year, today's christian bible is just a modern form of the same metaphor told over and over again with different details by different people... today's bible was written to seem like a literal story but in fact is simply a metaphor just like all of its early predecessors... no amount of belief will ever change truth.
Of course there are differences but the parallels are the solidity of the claim. Jesus was a triune creation of the pagan in the Council of Nicea. The trinity was a pagan concept and the biblical authors took from their pagan ancestors to form this new belief. Abraham was a Chaldean, sweetheart.
Do you ever tell the rubes nothing is written about Jesus at the time of his supposed life. nothing
It's clear that she is desperately trying to defend her faith, but is not providing any actual sources. As strange as it might sound, the mythical Jesus theory is a very creditable theory with plenty of supporting evidence. I highly recommend Richard Carrier for more information on this theory.
As a whole, whether or not Jesus existed is a frivolous endeavour when the main ideology of Christianity is entirely fruitless (which is the case of most religions).