For me, the strongest evidence is that there are so many different sources that talk about him and his followers, not just the gospels, but also other writers like Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and the Talmud. They all agree on some basic facts, like that Jesus lived in Palestine, taught and healed people, had disciples, and was killed by the Romans. I think that’s more convincing than the mythicists, who seem to have unrealistic expectations and double standards for historical proof.
The twelve men plus Saint Paul went the rest of their lives preaching what they heard and saw, they gained nothing from it and suffered horribly for it. 12 of the 13 being killed over it. Men dont throw away their lives so easily and for nothing.
There is no evidence for any existance, Jesus is a composite satirical character made up of several jewish messianic leaders from the first century. There is ample proof the Gospels are Roman engineered propaganda.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! I view the two as intricately connected since the adoption of double standards is indicative of disdain for history as we have actually received it and a slap in the face of the real men and women who lived, died and sacrificed to make our world possible.
@@seanstott6168 Rising from the dead, and making all of your friends happy, and having accomplished the most grueling quest in the universe, with a future of reigning as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, forever and ever, not so happy for Jesus? Really?
The burden of proof for the existence of someone named Jesus in Judea who led a religious movement is pretty low. Jesus was a common name, and there were plenty of religious movements in Judea. It's also not very hard to believe that the Romans would have crucified such a person.
It's a much easier explanation than to believe that someone simply made the guy up, or some committee. In all fairness, that is not the position that "serious" mythicists hold, but is the one the average Reddit mythicist has. The "serious" mythicist would say the Jesus Paul talks about was a metaphorical, spiritual figure that was later turned into a flesh and bone character with time. Which again is a much more complicated explanation.
Great presentation and it's surprising to see so much pushback in the comments for these noncontroversial claims. If you argued a specific interpretation of the historical jesus I could understand there being a stronger reaction but not to the simple claim that a man existed
what claims? He doesn't even present an argument for historicity outside the gospels. This is a terrible history video. A shame, because he could have done a proper one, and instead went for a sunday class diatribe. Shame.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT The fact you liken this to sunday school kinda lays bare exactly why you hold the position you hold, namely that you have a problem with the religion of Christianity.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, but maybe when he is thirsty enough, he will open his eyes and see a stream flowing in front of him "Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." Gospel of John, chapter 4. Many lives have been changed over the past 2000 years because of a "myth". Headhunters gave up their ancestral violence, cannibals changed their menu, Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion still used today by NASA, while looking for the star of Bethlehem, and countries (like the USA) were founded just for the freedom to worship Him. Cold case detective J.Warner Wallace tried to prove the myth theory to his wife using all of his cold case detective skills, and he now has dedicated his life to letting the world know the result of his investigation; Jesus lived, and the Gospels are eye witness accounts.
Man's really said in the most conservative and robotic voice and language possible......"Bear with me for a second. Allow me to _put_ you all on game. 🤓" "You're a F.A.P. You're a F.A.P. You're a F.A.P. False Asinine Provoker mixing history with gahd." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And honestly, the Gospels are not even that late as people say, and they certainly draw from even earlier sources that could very well be almost contemporaneous, in fact the latest of the four, that of John, is the one we actually have historical confirmation that was really written by him.
they have to be after 70ad because all are derived from mark and he mentions the jewish war which was after 70ad.....john was written in the 2nd century by multiple authors so thats just false
We genuinely didn't expect it to be controversial - we're presenting mainstream scholarship on the issue and a conclusion that is shared by a wide range of experts, from atheists to practicing Christians. The fact that there is still so much misinformation here and references to faulty sources shows why the video was necessary though
@@tribunateSPQR okay that's bull LOL you literally are here saying you're trying to be as harsh as possible. You can't say just because we lack definite information that people who doubt are denying reality. Is the denial unlikely? sure. but is it possible? also yes. sure mythacists aren't acting in good faith, but neither are you here. So i can't consider your argument without a bias inclination
@@remimk Why are you trying to make the mythicists look like they have any credibility here? The standard means of ancient historiography confirm Jesus as a historical person just as much as Siddhartha Gautama, John the Baptist, Muhammad, Rabbi Akiva, and Pythagoras are. It’s the mythicist who is in the wrong here, because they start off with a conclusion and read that into the evidence. Or go off into the deep end and call everything a forgery, or cook up conspiracy theories about the authors at hand and try to do some weird pseudo-psychoanalysis of people from 2,000 years ago. They don’t actually read the evidence that’s survived to us in their obvious plain reading, because if they did they wouldn’t be mythicists anymore.
@@remimk Well uhhhh...... about that....😅😅😅 The creator was harsh with this one, but if the situation pissed him off that much, it's tough to knock him. He did just say that people said no to historians who came at this situation with a legit methodology that was able to cut through a large amount of the bullshit, even the very biases of the sources of the material examined. You can't control how that makes him feel, and he can't either. If he feels some type of way because people are blasting methods that were used to prove many other historical people, it's hard to hold him. Plus it's whatever in all honesty; his emotions getting caught up in it doesn't distort the message. And you can't say he's not acting in good faith either because he showed the Carfax. Mans dropped many receipts from multiple cultures in and out the faith that substantiated Jesus. And the examining methods allowed the gospels to be used as a legit source, because they could filter out the bias now. What did the creator do wrong????? 😂😂😂😂
It’s bizarre to me how a holy figure like Buddha can be respected even by those who don’t adhere to his beliefs, yet someone as loving and wonderful as Jesus is hated..
This presentation was exceptionally executed! Ive listened to alot on Jesus existence, but you brought points in that are highly balanced and provocative! Im a believer, but my husband is not- YET! YOUR presentaion has empowered me, to drive him towards a more realistic stance regarding his cynism. Thank you sir! 4 Stars for you ! Pam L.
i don't think i've ever met someone in real life who argues jesus didn't exist. i didn't realize it was that controversial. i don't believe he had holy powers, but sure he was probably a dude.
Yeah, it's almost entirely a small group of very online people that have no understanding of the historical method and are primarily motived by a strong distaste for the modern religion of Christianity more than anything else. Basically angry athiest teenagers. As said in the video, acknowledging the historiocity of Jesus doesn't involve any faith or religion or even thinking that there was anything supernatural about him whatsoever. But they are SO consumed by anger at religion that even admitted that small amount is a step too far. Their desire is to humiliate the religion and anyone who follows it as following a myth, and they don't care whatsoever about what historians think.
@@Tinil0 Sorry, I but it is exactly the opposite, and this video is a perfect example. It is full of fallacies, presents NO argument outside the gospels, and basically exits stage left. He could do a nice job, but chose the cowardly way. threw a hissy fit.
I did not know Jesus mythosist where such a big problem over in America until i check the comments. Sorry to hear you guys have deal with that. Can't think of a single scholar that holds this position. Not even the overly critical Bart Ehrman.
It's a position advocated entirely on the internet - ask any of them to name a real scholar who holds this view and they'll name a 50 year old book by someone with qualifications in a completely different field
He was a being created by God that had no consciousness. No man can have the power of God. So basically a shell to carry out plans. God doesn’t really care about religion or worship, it was just a manner to subdue early barbarians. All will be explained in the upcoming rapture on God’s 14th billionth birthday. Y’all should drink up, God is banning alcohol after the rapture.
Ironically, Richard Carrier - who employs the historical method - is such a scholar who thinks Jesus is a myth. But even he thinks there's a 33% chance there was a historical Jesus. His point is: Jesus could be a figure like Robin Hood, General Ludd or John Frum: various real people combined with myth (based on Jewish "angelology", Jesus as the high priest in heaven). Carrier does away with Josephus by pointing out what is mentioned in this video: that the record has been doctored by later Christians. Carrier hopes that slowly this position will become the scholarly consensus - similar how Moses was revised from historical person to myth. Whether he's right... only time will tell. Note: this video would be much more credible if it would not start with framing the mythicist position as inconsistent, untrustworthy and having a hidden agenda.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 No. Carrier simply concludes that Jesus was a COMPLETE myth SOLELY because people (Greeks) years after his life attached commonly known mythological "tropes" to Jesus in order to embellish his life and make it relatable to the Hellenic world of the Mediterranean. Carrier points to the stories of other completely mythological characters that are VERY similar to the stories attributed to Jesus and thus declares that Jesus MUST have been entirely a myth as well. Jesus cannot be a myth while being 33% an historical figure. He is either a bonified historical figure or a complete myth. Can't have both!
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 I don't want to take your simplified descriptions for his actual arguments to be fair to him, but that sounds like EXTREMELY sloppy scholarship. Especially discounting Josephus entirely, when a single one of the references to Jesus was doctored, it was OBVIOUSLY doctored, we have no problems telling what was doctored and what wasn't, and we use otherwise doctored documents all the time as historical evidence. It having an obvious part doctored long afterwards is not a valid reason to discount Josephus. The comparison to Moses is nice because it just further shows how the mythicist position is flawed, in that it was quite easy to come to the conclusion of Moses's mythological status for all the reasons that you can't about Jesus. This doesn't even count the fact that Carrier is considered a fringe and controversial "historian". He cannot be held up as an example of a respected historian supporting the mythicist position simply because he isn't respected and his work is near universally criticized as problematic at best.
As an agnostic, the historical person of Jesus has always fascinated me. What did this person actually do or say that lead to the accounts that would later find themselves into writings? What were his intentions? Was he simply a philanthropist, perhaps a skilled healer? Or was he a raging narcissist who did indeed claim to be a higher power, and people believed him? We will probably never know, but it's fascinating to wonder
could you please add more content to your actual content? I would have much preferred if of the 20 minutes which compose this video more than 5 were dedicated to the actual historicity of Jesus rather than explaining over and over the same approach adopted by historians with much petulance
But it makes historical existence of the person a moot point. If there was a man named Yeshua in 1st century Judea (there were probably dozens, the name was so common), but he didn't do anything the bible says he did, what difference does it make if he was historical?
@@druidriley3163 Sure. Just because someone by the name of Yeshua is mentioned in an ancient document doesn't mean he was THE Yeshua (Jesus of the New Testament).
It’s important to remember that the Gospels - themselves - are sources written by people who knew the Disciples of Jesus or were written by the Disciples themselves. The Pauline letters are known to have been written by Paul the Apostle, lending further credence to the authenticity of the Bible. After that point, the entire matter concerning miracles and Jesus’s resurrection are up to personal interpretation. From a historian’s perspective, we cannot definitively say that they did or did not happen as all we have to go by are the accounts of the Apostles. However, outside of this, we can say - for certain - that Jesus was real and that Jesus was highly influential in swaying thousands of Jews towards him.
First sentence is 100% false. The Gospels were written anonymously, decades after the events they describe, by authors trained in Greek rhetoric (i.e. not by Galilean fishermen). They do not read at all like independent eyewitness reports, as the synoptics rely on one another for large numbers of verbatim passages, and recount events at which no apostles were present (trial before Pilate, for example). Gospel of John is even later. Also note that we have no first or second century manuscripts of any of the Gospels, other than small fragments, so we have no way of knowing that the texts we have weren't altered. The names that the Gospels appear under today were applied later, and we have no good evidence that they are accurate. Paul says explicitly that he did not base any of his ideas on conversations with any witnesses to Jesus, and in fact disparages Peter as a "nobody." Instead, he tells us all of his information about Jesus came to him in visions.(Galatians 1:12) Paul is therefore not an eyewitness either. The fact that the Gospels were originally written anonymously is well known among non-apologist biblical scholars.
@@jamesheartney9546 it sounds like your standard for an eyewitness account is someone journaling either as it happens or shortly after. 3 decades is nothing. My 9 year old son passed away last year. In 30 years, I could still give you a solid account of his life, and especially the day he passed. A guy rises from the dead and you discredit the gospels because of a 30 year gap. They fact that everything in them was not witnessed by the author doesnt discredit the eyewitnessing As my son lived, I heard stories about things he did while I wasnt there. I would include them in any biography I wrote about him, does this mean I was not an eyewitness to his life?
@@jamesheartney9546>The Gospels were written anonymously there is no evidence of this. all existing manuscripts have the authors listed afaik >The names that the Gospels appear under today were applied later, and we have no good evidence that they are accurate. how do we know they were applied later when there are no existing manuscripts from the 1st or 2nd century? that's completely baseless conjecture
You keep claiming there is historical evidence, yet you fail to show it. Why not quote sources? Give us, as they say, "book, chapter and verse" of historical books that contain authentic references of Jesus.
The crucifixion of Jesus is an example of an event that meets the criterion of embarrassment. This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and advocates of the criterion claim this method of execution is therefore the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment#Examples I am an atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural, but I believe the Jesus story is very loosely based on a real person.
Josephus, the antiquities of the Jews, book 18 chapter 3 “63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Actually we have better evidence for the existence of Pilate, including a stela with his name and mentions by contemporary historians. We also have better evidence for, say, Spartacus.
So Spartacus mostly having two biographies written 70 years later is better than 16 written sources about Jesus within only a couple decades after his life? Jesus has one at the earliest 16 years later. That's the timeframe between 9/11 and the 2016 election. Quit lying.
I'm not a mythicist, but this guy leans too far in the other direction. We don't have history of Alexander until after his death, but we have a dozen godamed cities named after him. You're boy doesn't get special treatment
What the hell do you mean 'leaning too far in the other direction'? You mean simply acknowledging the consensus opinion of virtually all historians of antiquity? As opposed to the ramblings of fringe anti-theist types and esoteric quacks? I don't think you get to disparage Jesus from the historical record.
The Roman texts simply repeat the gospels or the belief of the christians in the gospels. The fact gospels are not direct Christian fabrications does not mean there is an actual Jesus. Those Roman texts would need to be independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, providing new details, actual testimonies. But zero contemporary Roman historian ever mentioned Jesus. Paul, the only contemporary to have written about Jesus, only ever met people who had seen Jesus only in visions and revelations.
Josephus, a Jewish Pharisee, the antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter 3 “63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
@@turturkeykey3403 Actually, that quote was suspected to be a Christian fabrication. Here's the real quote: "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"
This is what the Historian Tacitus said about Jesus: "Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."
So long winded. Just be honest, say you accept the non contemporary sources of Jesus as validating his existence and his wandering preaching, and that the New Testament writings also validate his existence. For me, no contemporaneous sources, no validation. It is not important anyway. What is important is the foundation of Christianity, the ministry, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the messianic nature of Jesus, and his godhood. If Christians accept that then accepting his existence follows. I know Muslims accept Jesus or Isa as a prophet, even his virgin birth. But that isn't validation of Isa just a long line of repeated stories.
So Spartacus has no contemporary sources. Does that mention we should give him no validation as a historical figure either? Hannibal has zero contemporary literary sources. He only has one inscription from Rome that names him and a stronghold of his. That's it. The written annals of his life are completed 63 years after his death. Does he become largely fictional, too? Oh, and by the way, if it's not important, why is there such a small yet determined cult of people wanting to make Jesus non-historical? Why are the first impulse thoughts of internet atheists to call Jesus of Nazareth a fictional character created by a plate full of suspects for incoherent and contradicting reasons? Why is this conspiracy theory spread around across the web if it isn't important to people?
The Odyssey and Iliad were written down centuries after the events they described and were considered aprocryphal until Schliemann found Troy in th 19th century.
@@druidriley3163 Of course not. But they provide evidence for the Trojan War and the possible existence of some of the humans mentioned in the two sagas. Bear in mind that if Jesus existed, it does not prove that he was a god.
@@nickd4310 Well sure, historians have not doubted some of the characters in the bible mentioned were real -- Herod, Pilate. Roman emperor - but the main character?
@@druidriley3163 The title of the video is "How do we know Jesus existed," not whether God exists. An historian can conclude on the balance of probabilities that an historical Jesus existed without believing in gods. Alternatively, a religious person may believe Jesus was a God without any evidence for his existence.
@@nickd4310 Many people believe Jesus=God. Keep reading the comments and you'll see. *historian can conclude on the balance of probabilities that an historical Jesus existed without believing in gods* I'd rather a historian use evidence, not probabilities on the existence of a figure from antiquity.
...I'm sorry, did you bring up the criterion of embarrassment? That's an infamous fundie canard. We are not in a position to know in the modern day what people of that time would be embarrassed by. What's more, sometimes people deliberately include embarrassing details into their embellished stories, specifically to humanize themselves and appear more trustworthy. Trying to say "this detail is embarrassing to the author, therefore they would have only included it if it REALLY happened" is basically nonsensical from a historical analysis standpoint.
I would have to disagree here - the criterion of embarrassment is used by a broad range of scholars (for example it was one of the chief criterions endorsed by the Jesus Seminar). It is also be used by believing Christian scholars (some of whom may misuse it) to shore up the authenticity of certain passages, but this alone does not invalidate it as there is wide scholarly backing for the approach. It cannot and should not however take primacy over other criterion and must instead be used in concert with them to develop a nuanced portrait. As you mentioned however, it is not without its flaws and shortcomings - all the criterion have some issues inherent in their application and unfortunately the nature of the evidence always invokes a degree of subjectivity that can lead to vastly different portraits of Jesus.
I am not sure if Jesus existed or not. I lean toward that he did. But your logic for saying so is not correct. By your logic the characters in the Book of Mormon are also real. When characters are created to peddle religion the standards are not the same methodology.
@@TheHorseOutside the book of Mormon claims characters from an alien war in the Americas 6000 years ago. It's not exactly rooted in science. There are tons of archeological findings that beg to differ so yea.
@rogerxbannon5986 do there exist any sources outside of the book of Mormon that describe characters from the book of Mormon A: as if they truly exist and B: in a critical manner?
@TheHorseOutside Exactly. Even ignoring the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, it's fallacious to claim that the first century writings on Jesus hold the same historical weight as the Book of Mormon. While of course it is not impossible to invent a character of recent past, this is obviously not the same as texts that are written describing events hundrends or even thousands of years in the past. For the first to be false, you have to assume an at least somewhat elaborate fraud in which someone invents a character at a time when people who were still alive and living in the areas described in the narravtive could simply refute that the character ever existed. For the second to be true you have to assume either that divine revelation truely occured as in the case of the Book of Mormon, or that an unbroken and uncorrupted chain of oral history existed for hundreds of years as in the case of the narrative of the pentateuch. In other words applying Occam's razor to both senarions leads to opposite conclusions about, at the very least, the existence of the core elements of the narrative. Most secular scholars affirm that Jesus was a historical figure. Paul is unquestionably a historical figure whose writings survived, and in those writings he describes meetings he had in Jerusalem with multiple prominent people who claim to have known the historical Jesus, including Jesus' brother James. While this is not hard proof that Jesus was historical, it does present a situation where to deny the historicity of Jesus means subscribing to a very elaborate fraud in which multiple conspiring people would have been attesting to having interacted with a made up figure in a time and place where they could have been refuted by their contemporaries. This is a starkly different senario to the Book of Morom or the first five books of the Old Testament.
There is no evidence that a divine Jesus Existed. Can you name a contemporary writer or historian (other than the uncorroborated bible stories) who was an eyewitness to Jesus and mentions Jesus in his writing?
@@Pmrace1960 It is so low, that it is near zero! Why? Because what was supposed to be the most momentous event of the century does not have a single eyewitness.
Did you not finish the sentence where the word "embarassment" was mentiond before posting this? Embarassment was mentioned not as proof that "they would have only included it if it REALLY happened", but as a heuristic tool for considering if it is worth dismissing a historical anecdote entirely or to analyze it further.
i thought (and hoped) that people would leave this sort of ahistoricity behind with the other angsty dismissals of reality, as i had done when i stopped being a teenager if that were the case maybe i'd have gotten the video i wanted which is "how much can we know about the historical jesus"
We will definitely return to this topic later and create a video on scholarly methods for analyzing Jesus narratives, as well as how different approaches and backgrounds can result in radically different portraits of Jesus. For now, we felt the need to establish basic facts such as the existence of the man before we began speaking about areas where scholarly opinion is more divided.
We have to accept that we can not proof what is under 50 layers of mythology, but as it is a religiln no ond care about a human. They care only for the only of thousands of Artificial, mythological fegures they call Jesus.
7:37 "The position espoused by conservative Christians today that He was the divine Son of God." Not sure why 'conservative' was added here. Regardless of the particular theological/political orientation, this is fundamental Christian dogma that is proclaimed by the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Even non-Trinitarian traditions have various explanations of how Jesus is both God and the Son in some more metaphorical sense.
You're right and I regret the language used here - I was attempting to draw a distinction between the two extremes of biblical accuracy and in so doing it looked like I was attributing this view of Jesus to only conservative Christians. I understand that it is the dominant view and is shared by all orthodox traditions within Christianity.
The question of myth or not is irrelevant until you state which Jesus figure you're talking about. Possible that "a" Jesus, a preaching Jew, roamed the land of Galilee and gathered a following? Sure, why not. Jesus was a common name in that area and there's plenty of attestation of travelling preachers/rabbi's. However, "the" Jesus, the resurrected one, son of a god (or god himself?), to which many miraculous deeds, healings, etcetera are ascribed is more likely mythological than historical.
You can reject all the magical elements attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, as testified in the gospels, and still be left with a historical figure. THE Jesus of the gospels did, in fact, exist. He was baptized by John the Baptist, spoke in parables, thought he was the messiah, spoke of a coming kingdom, had 12 apostles, was betrayed, and was crucified.
@@ShunM-vr6mt All of this is based on what we state as "for so says the bible". We only know from the gospel according to Mark that John the Baptist baptised him. Everything this figure supposedly said (or even thought) comes from the gospels. I can likewise strip Harry Potter from all his magical powers and dismiss Hogwarts and a magical world exist, and then state that what's left--a teenager living in England underneath a staircase--is historical. Yet we know that is not the case. So your methodology is at best unhelpful. The broader point is that it may be possible that a Jewish preacher existed, that he upset Roman rule and the civitas tranquili and was subsequently executed. Hower, "possible" doesn't get us to probable, let alone accepted as historical fact. There is simply a general lack of verifiable (archeological) evidence and independent attestation that holds to the requirement of provenance. Tacitus mentions a person who his followers call the christ was crucified. However, Tacitus doesn't mention his sources, something he usually does. So it is more likely that he got such "info" or "hearsay" from early christians. That does not rise to the standard of independent attestation. Historians don't work that way. Conclusion: until real material evidence turns up, we'll never know, and just like a plethora of "historical" figures he'll remain historical speculation.
@@lizadowning4389Well uhhh..... not to be a jerk, but the video did tell us why the gospels could be used. One of the key points emphasized is that historians developed a way to filter through the potential cap and bias and get to whatever meat a source can offer em. If you want to dismiss the gospels, it would help to at least challenge that first for good measure. And with regards to historians not working like that, could I trouble you for an elaboration? Not trying to shoot you down, but if you wanna disprove the video, you got your work cut out for you. 😂😂😂 The video asserts that you gotta say no to other historical people we've accepted because of secondhand accounts if you say no to Jesus. That's a tough bar to clear. 😂😂😂😂
@@Six3rdy In large, most bible scholars are not trained historians, and it shows when they start arguing their case for so-called historical biblical events and personages. They are unfamiliar with the historical method, the requirement of using anchor points (material evidence, etcetera) when assessing ancient texts. And yes, historians do not accept alot of material as historical fact on a plethora of "historical" personages, events, etcetera. We do not take for historical fact everything Julius Caesar writes in his Commentaries. However, we do have a plethora of material evidence (inscriptions, coinage, etcetera) that corroborates many elements of his life, his rule and place in ancient history. So, what material evidence, archeology, ..., do you have for this Jesus personage other than copies of literature centuries after his claimed life? "historians developed a way to filter through the potential cap and bias and get to whatever meat a source can offer em" Which historians are you refering to, the bible scholars of the past two centuries? The self-proclaimed scholars that developed the "criteria of authenticity", which no serious historian uses? If we would apply these criteria of "biblical scholarship" then most fabeled figures and events in history would be accepted as historical fact. Or the bible scholars that "generally agree that the gospels were written between 70 and 140 CE" ... although there is no evidence in support of that? The oldest fragment of a canonical gospel (P52) is dated to around 175 CE, no bigger than a bank card while the first more or less complete gospels appear late 3rd cen CE. So based on what evidence are these bible scholars (including Ehrman) uttering their academic creed of "Mark 70ties CE, Matthew ..."? The author that wrote the gospel according to Luke was clearly--to any serious historian in antiquity anyways--writing stories, not history. He messes up dates and rulers right from the start (nativity story) although he introduces us with the message that he conducted a careful examination of events. Judea and Samaria were not a Roman province until 6/7 CE so there was no governor (Quirinius) before that, hence no direct taxation from Rome, hence no need to order a census during the time when Herod acted as client ruler for the Romans. A census was only ordered when a governor was appointed. When Archelaus was deposed (6/7 CE) Quirinius was appointed because Rome ordered that Judea and Samaria (not Galilee) would become a Roman province and thus under the direct rule (and taxation) of the empire. Jesus couldn't both be born under the rule of Herod (who died 4 BCE) and a pregnant Mary to travel to Bethlehem for the census ordered by Quirinius (6/7 CE). The "fine historian" Luke left an inexplicable 10 year gap. Any historian reading the gospels notices right from the start he's not reading a historical account but a foundational story, aka myth.
@tribunateSPQR I have. That doesn't change my statement. Are you aware of any _evidentiary facts_ that demonstrate the historicity of this Jesus? Yes or no.
I'm somewhere between agnostic, atheist, and anti-religion as a whole, and even I am humble enough to know history points to Jesus existing, just as it does for Muhammad and Siddhartha Gautama. What I am surprised by is how *sassy* this video got at the end. Hahaha.
I was blowing off a little steam there at the end as I found myself increasingly frustrated that I needed to establish something so basic. I'm still shocked people work themselves into knots to deny something that has literally know theological or metaphysical implications whatsoever
Thank you for being driven by fact and rationality. Massive respect for calling out the political activists presenting themselves as "scientifically" driven people.
3 месяца назад+1
NO, Jesus did NOT exist. Not even the so-called "historical Jesus", he did not exist.
Oh wow. Let's pack it up, guys. It's over. All historians of antiquity, Second Temple Judaism, and 1st century Palestine are all wrong because some internet goober said otherwise.
While I find the Jesus mythicist position to be absurd, given the historical data, and by employing the historical method, this video title and some rhetoric within the video is not accurate. Historians do not "know" Jesus existed. Because unless the content creators are using "know" in a colloquial way and not as an absolute certainty, historians can be absolutely certain about historical figures from antiquity.
@Pmrace1960 The gospels are evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, despite your false assertion. They are a component of the evidence, along with the likely writings of Paul of Tarsus and the likely writings of Flavius Josephus. The gospels, canonical or otherwise, are not historically reliable texts overall, but they do correlate to the other data related to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. It is far more likely that he existed than not. The abductive reasoning that historians use in their methodology leads to that conclusion.
@Pmrace1960 Since my first reply to you got deleted for some ridiculous reason, I'll try this again. The gospels are evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, despite your false assertion. They are not historically reliable texts in many ways, but they are corroborative of the likely writings of Paul of Tarsus and the likely writings of Flavius Josephus, as they both attest to Jesus of Nazareth being a historical figure. Using the abductive reasoning of the historical method, it's completely reasonable to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth almost certainly existed.
I hold the same disdain for mythicists for their "war on history" I also hold that same disdain for those who believe in the miracles as well. Both Myth and Miracles are ahistorical. Great Video btw!!!!!!
Sorry but starting from a naturalist presupposition is just that presupposition one should be open for both supernatural and natural explanations to events. That does not mean blind faith but if the best explanation is a super natural it's most likely true. Otherwise one assumes that the material world is the only reality that exist and that is just bad metaphysics.
@@wizardmadnes8035are you open to Hinduism or Islam or Shintoism? The issue with presupposing the supernatural is that there are hundreds of modern and thousands of ancient interpretations of the supernatural. There is only one nature, and it is something that we can observe and test everyday, regardless where we are are what we believe and the results of the tests are the same. The "best explanation" is "most likely true" is terrible metaphysics because there is no metric for what is the "best explanation." If you asked a Roman why earthquakes happen he would say that it is because of Neptune duh, and that was the "best explanation" at the time, does that therefore mean it is true? Of course not. Through a naturalistic understanding of the world we stopped blaming gods or God for earthquakes and now understand tectonic plates. What I presuppose is that evidence should come before belief. We only have evidence for the natural. So I can see why religious folk believe I and others "presuppose" a natural world only. There are those which this video rightly calls out who are ardently against any supernatural beliefs to the point where they deny reality which is a serious issue.
A Jesus that lacks all the notable characteristics of what Jesus is known for is not Jesus. It is akin to calling the electromagnetic field the aether.
The skeptical arguments I’ve heard, like “the sources were written much later” or “they were written with bias” were used to argue that we shouldn’t take the bible to be a literally true account that has to be followed to the letter. I grew up in an evangelical home where we were taught every word was gospel and directly handed down to us as a mandate from God. I didn’t realise that a lot of people seriously think Jesus didn’t exist - he was just some guy, not the son of God, but he existed. What this video really has me thinking about is how accurate is the history of Caligula and so many other historical figures?? Are they as suspect in accuracy as I know the biblical narrative is, or even more so?? That is CRAZY
I have heard good mythesist arguments but I do come down on the side of there was probably some guy way back that got a bunch of things tacked on to him later. It does get to the point that you could say the final iteration barely resembles the original person to the point where you could say they were two different people, but the latter wouldn’t exist without the former.
This presentation contains a statement that is objectively false: "No scholars with relevant credentials today advance the claim that Jesus was a purely mythological figure." Richard Carrier has a PhD in Ancient History and has published a peer reviewed work ""On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" These are verifiable objective facts. The presenter certainly has the right to his opinions but to deny reality is unprofessional as well as delusional and thus negates the content of his presentation. He needs to deal with the actual arguments not straw men.
I'm aware of Carrier but was hesitant to apply the "scholar" label to him as he holds no university position and his work is treated with disdain by the field at large. It's very funny to describe his work as "peer reviewed" as if this lends credibility when all the reviews slam him for shoddy work that relies on wishful thinking more than evidence. You may feel that I presented mythicism as a straw man but that's simply because there is no coherent way t present the theory. It breaks down immediately on contact with reality
How about Raphael Lataster, PhD, University of Sydney, adjunct professor? He is the author of "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus" also peer reviewed but I am sure you will find something wrong with him too. I have entitled your theory of peer review, "Peer Review Nullification." @@tribunateSPQR
@@tribunateSPQR *his work is treated with disdain by the field at large* His book was well-received by critics, so I think you have a little self--delusion going on there. And since when is a university position telling of someone's scholarly abilities? If he can make enough money on his own works, why would he need to work for a university when he can be an independent scholar?
It is simply not true that "all the reviews slam him for shoddy work". @@tribunateSPQR Maybe read Carrier's book on the topic with an open mind, rather than parrot hearsay opinions from Christians who apply motivated reasoning to reject Carrier's arguments. BTW, there have been scholarly books written by professors in Germany putting forward the Jesus mythicist view since the 1800s (and very recently, too). The fact that you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. There's no scholarly consensus amongst historians that a human Jesous existed. Scholars who think he existed almost all simply assume that he existed; they haven't looked into it deeply. They assume that the Gospels are, at their core, biographies. Specialists know that's not the case, and that Paul's Epistles long predate the first Gospel, upon which all the other Gospels were based; and Paul's Epistles, taken together with the Ascension of Isaiah document, strongly suggest that Paul's Christos Jesous was a mythical salvific archangel figure, not a human being. Read Carrier's book, read a couple of Robert M. Price's books, read RG Price's book, read and consider the implications of Prof. Markus Vincent's scholarly views on when the first Gospel arose and what it contained (Marcion, 130s CE), and then reconsider your overcommitment to the idea that a historical Jesus existed.
I have come to the conclusion that Socrates was a group of philosophers that Plato idolized and came to be known as the mythical figure Socrates. Many philosophers were forced to drink poison at the time and had various myths and teachings about them. Franz Meusebach wrote extensively on this.
"There are no contradictions in the gospels" is a very weird stance for a mythicist to take. But even if we throw out the gospels entirely we still have the letters of Paul (earliest coming 15~ years after Jesus' death) and other NT documents that affirm his historicity. However we don't even need THESE works as there are passages on Jesus from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger among other non-Christian sources.
@@tribunateSPQR *There are no contradictions in the gospels" is a very weird stance for a mythicist to take* I don't know any mythicist who takes this stance. *we still have the letters of Paul...that affirm his historicity* Paul never met nor knew a living Jesus. His Jesus was strictly visionary. No other book of the bible is contemporary to the time of Jesus, none say they are eyewitness accounts. Tacitus and Josephus weren't even born when Jesus supposedly lived, so they're not contemporary sources either. Tacitus was writing nearly 100 years after the supposed life of Jesus. He was only writing what Christians of his time believed. Josephus' TF mention of Jesus is now widely considered to be a forgery, a later interpolation of Christians. It's only how much of it is a forgery that's in question. Josephus was also writing in the late 1st century.
@@druidriley3163 You said the gospels are all copies of each other, indicating you don't feel there are sufficient differences between them. In reality though the different perspective and editorial choices of each author is widely recognized, even though it is commonly understood that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Again, the distance between the first authors and Jesus is rather small when we consider the limits of ancient historiography. Plutarch never met Caesar and wrote 100+ years after his death but his (flawed) biography is still viewed as a valuable source. You're applying a standard to Jesus that can't be applied universally because this is something you WANT to be true, you're a fundamentalist and no different from a dogmatic creationist. If you want to be this skeptical about all ancient history then be my guest - you'll be laughed at and mocked by professional historians and academics (much like Carrier is) but at least you will be consistent.
@@tribunateSPQR *You said the gospels are all copies of each other* I don't say this, scholars do. Scholars have known for a long time that Matthew and Luke are copies of the book of Mark. 60% of Mark's verses are in Luke, 90% of Mark's verses are in Matthew. Word for word. There is no question they are copies. *In reality though the different perspective and editorial choices of each author is widely recognized* It is widely recognized that each author had their own agenda. But each was writing ONE gospel. Their own. They were not writing in conjunction with another gospel. The author of Luke even states he is writing the gospel that should be preeminent over the others. *Again, the distance between the first authors and Jesus is rather small* 40 years is not "small'. It's 2 generations. Average life expectancy at the time was 60 years. By the time the book of Mark was written (anywhere from 71-73 ce) anyone who was a peer of a historical Jesus would have been at the end of their life or already dead. *Plutarch never met Caesar and wrote 100+ years after his death but his (flawed) biography is still viewed as a valuable source* Because we have corroborating sources other than Plutarch for Julius Caesar's life. We do not take Plutarch alone at his word. *If you want to be this skeptical about all ancient history* Everyone should be viewing ancient history with skepticism. Unless we have contemporary corroborating documents, events, laws, artwork, coinage that support people or events in the past, no historian or scholar will consider them "historical".
They are not all copies. John's Gospel is very different from synopti onesc. And yes - 40 years is 'small' time period, compared to what we have to other historical figures. And they are not alone - Romans within 1st century viewed Jesus as real person who influences new groups who were Christians. You should ask yourself - why would anyone invent Jesus? Ancient people loved give as their authority famous figures - why wouldn't they choose some faous prophet as their source of influence but come after virtually unknown man? Yes, we should be skeptic about ancient history, but we should also apply Ockham'z razor - if someone is treated by ancient sources as historical figure, especially, in less than 100 years after thheir end, then chances are better than not such figure was real.
In other words this video proves nothing. It is riddled with circular logic, blatant dismissal of anything that questions his existence as a real person and 'trust the experts' lunacy, even while admitting they don't know anything more than anyone else themselves, even admitting they 'infer' (aka make up without actual evidence) things You directly contradict your own logic multiple times, dismissing anything you don't agree with from supposed sources while also claiming it wouldn't matter if the majority or all of the things being said were made up for whatever reason, completely ignoring the fact that would invalidate them as sources for anything in itself. The existence of contradictory statements about him, combined with a completely non existent amount of actual physical evidence is in itself a huge indication that he did not exist Your 'sources' are nonsense. Nothing they say can be taken at face value or as evidence of anything. You're conveniently leaving out the fact that the majority of the people writing anything about him also claim he's literally the son of a god who magically ascended to a mythical heaven. In other words they're talking bs and any statements they make about him are based on bs. The christian writers have a reason to lie an to bs about things they were told by others as well as to believe the lies of others told to them, the romans had every reason to lie and none of them had even met him or seen any of the events first hand they were writing about. They were talking based on things other people had told them. as for famous historians and what they had to say about him, I suggest looking into their histories yourself. They frequently talked nonsense and flat out made things up on a fairly regular basis. Something such people have a long history of doing Not to mention you're being incredibly self righteous, pedantic and ignorant
Followers of Jesus have so many outlandish claims in terms of miracles and morality, that believable evidence for his existence is important. I have yet to see any credible proof of his existence from a non-christian contemporary source. If he is proven to exist, i would happily accept it, after all billions of other people have managed to exist. This video strawmans the position of people like me, whilst giving NO acceptable evidence.
There are many valid non-christian historical sources for Jesus, I encourage you to do a google search on this as you will quickly see that Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus and even the Talmud all testify to the historicity of a man named Jesus. There are no historically rigorous reasons for rejecting any of these sources and they are accepted by scholars of every stripe. In addition, Christian sources cannot be rejected in their entirety simply because of miraculous elements or an authorial agenda. Doing so requires the adoption of a standard that would prevent us from using the vast bulk of ancient literature for any reconstruction of the past. As mentioned, there is no obligation to become a doctrinal Christian simply because one acknowledges that a Jesus existed it's a hill that simply isn't worth dying on
"It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography." - This was said by a christian theologian/historian (ironically, perhaps) John Crossan; and I guess demonstrates what could be a "proto-mythicist" position (the distrust of the sources and of those that work them, specifically, since it's not unreasonable to think some could use this work to justify their own theological beliefs). The major issue, then, which is I think the major grievance of this video, is an "overcorrection" (for lack of a better term) to the other side, going on a complete dismissal of everything, based purely on beliefs. Going back on Crossan, it's ironic that he became controversal amongst christians for wanting to study a historical Jesus using Historical methods and sources, which could deviate from christian canon or setting aside a lot of the supernatural stuff, and that this same position would also become controversial amonst others for the opposite reason, that he would be "delving too much into the supernatural" for merely attempting. Also, just an aside, one could use this video as a good addendum/example for an explanation/critique of Ranke's Historicism.
I try not to editorialize too much but this is a position I can state unequivocally doesn't merit any respect - its fundamentally incoherent and an assault on the practice of history itself. There's plenty we don't know about the ancient past and I will hold to views that are in the minority on some issues myself - but the historicity of Jesus is as open and shut as anything can be from this era.
So i used to have a rather agnostic view of historical jesus but something that fueled it was that when pointing towards textual evidence i got a vague "josephus" & the tacitus quote which, idk if its the translation or something but it came off As "nero did things to christians; the christians believe X" which read as proof of christians" Getting the actual citations changes the perspective radically
@@gregoryfilin8040 No, it means that the comparison in this video (between the date the gospels were written and the time gap between Alexander and the biography) is not a useful one and should be disregarded. How did you interpret my point to mean that Alexander did not exist?
@@MatthewCaunsfield Logical extrapolation of your standards outwards towards all historical figures. I'm merely pushing your idea to its logical conclusion and end goal.
I think that everything past acknowledging his existence and death by crucifixion is up for debate and there is plenty of evidence to support a wide range of interpretations but if someone can't even admit to those tow well established facts then they aren't really able to contribute to the conversation.
😂 we have more & better evidence of Pontius Pilate than Jesus …are u just lying or ignorant? Pilate's Life As a historical figure, we have evidence of contemporary literature, coins minted in his name, and an inscription from the base of what may have included his statue from the city of Caesarea. Our literary sources for Pilate include the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria
Know? Historians and theologians may believe, conjecture, extrapolate, maintain, consider, conciliate, concede, accept, replicate, calculate, promote, insist and think Jesus existed. But know? That would require, by logical parity, physical evidence for their physical claim. They have no physical evidence. Hence, the best we can all say is MAYBE.
Yes, we can sure without a reasonable doubt that he walked the Earth and did and said some things. Imagine thinking that a lack of physical evidence makes the mythicist case look even remotely credible.
@@robertlight5227You're starting with a false premise here. Why exactly does physical proof become the end all be all? Why are you so blatantly ignorant of how ancient history works that you think someone's physical body is the only way to prove they existed? This is like me claiming that because I don't have physical proof of a physical Buddha or a physical Nero, that means they're fictional.
@@thefancasthub6862 You have no premise. If you cant prove your JC was at least a man then what are we to think of your greater claim he was a deity? Where is your confirmation? This why people are leaving organized religion. All you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of contradictory text from lost manuscripts for unknown authors in Greek.
Very poorly researched if he believes no academics assert mythicism and have published peer reviewed books on it - and he’s condescending towards them.
He doesn't say they don't exist; he says they are dogmatic and use a different burden of proof for Jesus than you'd use for any other historical figure.
He doesn't need to say "hey I am God, worship me", him just indicating that he is God was enough for people during his own time and for believers today to worship him. In Abrahamic religions only God can forgive sins, Jesus often did say "your sins are forgiven" which people during his own time understood as him claiming to be God. Jesus raising people from the dead would also have been interpreted by the people of his time as him being God and acting like God - having power over life and death itself. Jesus also saying things like "I am the way, the truth and the life" and "no one comes to the Father except through me" is also a great example of him claiming to be God. So, he doesn't explicitly need to exclaim to everyone around him "I AM GOD WORSHIP ME." 👍
@@pao5567 *He said he is God incarnate* Which would have gotten him stoned to death for blasphemy in ancient Jewish society, yet he wasn't. Sounds like it's a made up story.
This video starts off by claiming the public doesn't understand the methods of professional historians. But we do. I personally know a couple of professional historians - university academics. They have a strong inclination to tell a good story and get facts wrong and omit facts contrary to their story. Look at RUclipsr Mark Felton - a university history teacher specialisiing in World War 2. He gets a lot of things wrong, especially when he talks about the war in the pacific. But he tells a good story.
I fully believe that you are familiar with the methods and methodology of academic historians as are most of the viewers of this video - but we're a small subset of the population that are passionate about history and though I wish this commitment was more broadly shared I don't think the general public has a solid grasp on what constitutes a valid historical approach. Even many of the comments on this video reject the overwhelming consensus of scholarship on this issue which shows that there is a tendency to reject historical evidence and expertise if it aligns with pre-existing beliefs.
Except Mark Felton isn't peer reviewed. This whole topic has a scholarly consensus. Just seems to me you have an anti intellectualism so strong you'd of voted for the Khmer Rouge
@@ManiacMayhem7256 If you read my post carefully, you would have seen that I said professional historians tend to concoct a good story and are loose with the facts. This is contrary to what the presenter of this video implied. I gave Mark Felton as an example of a professional historian who tells a good story and not the facts. The topic of this video does not have scholarly consensus anyway. The leading academics of the Christain Faith all describe it as just that - a faith. That is, it's something that cannot be proven - you have to take it on faith. If that works for you, and it does for many, fine. Incidentally, Google Scholar shows Mark Felton has published in peer reviewed journals.
@@keithammleter3824 Your post wasn't formulated carefully, it's just anti intellectual drivel the likes of which you'd of seen from the Khmer Rouge And your assertion is a lie meant to poison the well. If we use actual historians, such as Richard J. Evans, Adam Tooze, Sheila Fitzpatrick, J Arch Getty and Stephen Kotkin, we see they don't fit the anti intellectual narrative you push. They sacrifice narrative history for analytical fact. Your cherrypicking a pop historian doesn't really change that, especially when Felton is heavily criticized by other historians. It's funny how you guys on the left are like "Trust the experts!" Until the experts disagree with you 🤣, then you try to discredit the entire field. Thankfully we can see the facts for ourselves rather than your propaganda. There is a scholarly consensus on this debate. A single Google search and a peek into peer reviewed academic journals reveals this. Even Wikipedia, usually reserved in its language due to centrism, admits most scholars and historians believe Jesus was real. You're being dishonest. A Google search alone disproves your notion, let alone the numerous works on the matter Cool, name me the peer review work from Felton.
@@keithammleter3824 You cherry picked a pop historian who is already heavily criticized by historians and tried to discredit the entire field through him. It's just anti intellectualism via poisoning the well. Unlike you, I can cite numerous historians who sacrifice narrative pop history for analytical fact. J. Arch Getty, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Robert Gellately, Stephen Kotkin, Richard J. Evans, Adam Tooze, and more. Cite me a specific example for each one of them distorting facts for a "good story". I'll wait.
RHITORIC NONSENSE. Alexandros had a bunch of scientists with him. They wrote their own books based on their special subjects of study, botanologists, historians, doctors, astrologists, philosophers, engineers, architects, landscaping engineers.....Many wrote books on his campaign, among them his close general, Ptolemaios Lagos, the later founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty, called Soter ( Σωτήρ ), the Saviour, like the pseudojesus Christ was named after. From the lost works on Alexandros, the later authors based their own works, like Arrianos whom he is taught in the world schoolrooms today throughout the world. No historian wrote any historical thesis on JC, except a casual mention of his name. Using Alexandros' case on his authentic existence along with the fabled Jesus Christ, in order to establish JC's existence, you commit dishonesty and manipulation of historical evidence which belong to historical figures instead. You complicate the simple and evident with a rhetoric nonsense.
*or as a danish history Magazine printed recently* What Danish magazine was that? I could easily counter with an entire issue of National Geographic devoted to searching for the historicity of Jesus and admitting they failed to find any evidence. *Historians agree that he was jewish religious leader executed by the romans around the year 30* I'd like to know where they got this date from. Because not even the bible says when he was executed. 😎
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *Not even Bible says he was executed" I think you didn't read Bible then* I think you didn't read my post. Go back and read my post again because I said "Because not even the bible says _when_ he was executed."
Wow, this video is so full of inaccuracies and just plain wrong information. Definitely sounds like it’s made by someone trying to prove Jesus. It’s definitely not a scholastic account.
To me, the most convincing evidence of the historical Jesus is the psychological realism of the Gospels. Jesus seems to me to have been a very charismatic preacher with a strong passive aggressive streak, deeply empathetic but with outbursts of impatience. Moreover, the people he interacts with are deeply flawed - Peter, for example, who just gets everything wrong and at the end can't even own up to being his friend. Or Pontius Pilate, a middle-aged bureaucrat who asks, almost in passing, "what is truth?", as if to slightly betray a flash of some long-dead curiosity he must have had as a young man. The Gospels are rare in ancient literature, in that they give a very broken, contradictory, and painfully real view of ordinary people. So either the Gospels were fabricated by a literary genius who could anticipate the realism of the 19th century, or they were to at least some extent the story of real people.
No. The evidence for his existence is because of mainly non-Christian talking about him in the 1st century within the lifetime of his early followers and relatives (James the Just as an example). Not because of any psychological reasoning. That's why virtually everyone in the field acknowledges his historical existence.
@thefancasthub6862 Wow, good manners! Anyway, the major references to Jesus are Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, and arguably the Talmud. Pliny describes Christians, but not Jesus - he is dealing with an administrative problem of them not performing the sacrifices to Caesar. Josephus' reference is strongly suspected to be corrupt, as his works were preserved exclusively by Christians and not Jews. Tacitus mentions a riot by the followers of someone named "Christus", but some texts render this as "Chrestus", which was a common Greek name. Finally, the Talmud had started to be composed over 100 years after Jesus' death, and mention someone they call "Yeshua bar Joseph", which is about as specific as "Joseph son of John".
@@thefancasthub6862 Thank you, comic book guy. The references to Jesus outside the Gospels and Paul are Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, and the Talmud, and there are problems with all four. Josephus is likely to be corrupt, as he was copied exclusively by Christians and not Jews. Pliny doesn't mention Jesus, just Christians who do not perform the annual sacrifices to Caesar. Tacitus mentions a riot of the followers of "Christus", although some manuscripts read "Chrestus", a common Greek name. Finally, the Talmud mentions Jesus several centuries after the appearance of Christianity, describing a charismatic eccentric who was the son of an adulterer - a very typical attitude after the destruction of the Second Temple, when Jewish Christianity largely disappeared and both Jews and Christians saw themselves in opposition to one another.
While I think Jesus was probably a real figure, I have a problem with using the flawed nature of the people therein as evidence. It seems to me the highlighting of those flaws serves a narrative purpose - to highlight the perfection of Jesus and how lost others are without him. Additionally, Pilate waving off Jesus casually is meant to show that the truth didn't matter to him and the people who wanted Jesus gone. Having them not be this way would only serve to muddy the point the new testament's trying to make IMO.
@bennettbullock9690 There are two references to Jesus by Josephus. One of them is barely a partial interpolation and still overall authentic. And the other is about his brother and is completely authentic. Tacitus' use of Chrestus is not a common Greek word and is indeed a specific reference to Christ. It's not a reference to any other type of person but that. Pilny also references Jesus when he says that "they sing a hymm to Christ". So, it is Jesus that he references.
Duuuude, I really liked this one. I think I was holding onto some early-aughts nu-atheism edgelord baggage... "It is a war on the discipline of history itself" indeed.
Even if you don’t believe in Jesus as a prophet and son of God, you have to admit that it is more likely than not he existed. It is far more believable that a religion was started by the man all the sources talk about than an invention of the mind.
Well, if it wasn't for Constantine and his council of Nicaea, Christianity would have fizzled out. People forget about the infighting among the pre Christians, what was gospel what was heresy, the Arians, whether Jesus was God, the weird Trinity thing.
Biblical words and names are Farsi/Persian, some are listed below: The word "God" is coming from "Good" and good comes from Farsi word " خوب - Khoob " and khoob comes from " خاک او - khaake-uo " and khaake-uo comes from " خاک - khaak " which means "Soil" or "Earth". The word "Khaak" is a natural and organic word/language/sound which is coming from the sound our mouth makes when ejecting/spitting out the dirt that has entered our mouth, it was used by mothers to teach children what to eat (enter their mouth) and whatnot. Deus and Dios are Farsi words "Darius" or "Cyrus [the Great"]. Hashem is " آهن شمش - aahan-shemsh " means "Iron Ingot" from Iran/Iron. Allah is " آهن آلات - aahan-aalat " means "Iron Tools / Metal Tools". Sallallahou Alayhe Wasallam, Arabic " صلي الله عليه وسلم " is " سرب و آهن و حلبی و مس زرد رنگ - sorbo-ahano-halabi-va-mese-zard-rang " which means "Lead, iron, tin and yellow copper". Allah o akbar is " آهنآلات خاک کن - aahan-alate-khak-kan " means "Iron tools to dig the ground" like Picks and Shovels. Mosses " مس ساز or مس دزد - mes-saz OR mes-dozd " means "coppersmith or copper thief" Jew "جا - jaa" = Room / Home / Shed Jesus "جا ساز - jaa-saaz" = Home builder Christ "کار است, کار دست - kaar-ast/kare-dast" = The work we do using our hands to build a home, determines the ownership of that house Genocide "جا نساز - jaa-na-saaz" = Do not build home Genesis "جا نسازید - jaa-na-saazeed" = Do not build house (purell for genocide) Gabrael "این جا بروید - jaa-beraveed" = Leave this home, executor of eviction Palestine "پا و دستان - paa-va-dastan" = Legs and hands, [construction] workers Disciple "دست پرکار or دست و پا دار - dast-o-paadar" = Having [skilled] hands for work Joseph "جا زاد - jaa-zaad" = The male who was born in that home Jouda "جا دار - jaa-daar" = One with home, not homeless John "جای من - jaa-ye-man" = My home [in the future] Judea "جادارها - jaa-daarha" = Those who have house (opposite of homeless) Moshe "مال من میشه - maale-man-mysheh" = It will be mine Judaism "جا دزدیست - jaa-dozdist" = Home/land thief Magi "مانده جا - mandeh-jaa" = The man who knows the owner of the home and land Maryam "مادرم - maadaram" = My mother, being a mother Mary "مادری - maadary" = Motherhood, a girl who is expected to be a mother (roots for marriage, madam, Ms and Mrs) Jahad "جا بخواه - jaa-bekhah" = Demand for having a home (not an enslaved on someone else's land) Salvation "بساز و بشین - besaz-o-beneshin" = To live in your own built house and living in there Babylon "برابرن - bara-baran" = Equals, people who shared the land equally amongst themselves Malachi "مالکان - malekan" = Landlords, owners of the houses. Pagan " پاره گان - paregan" = Those girls who lost their virginity Sodom [and] Gomorrah " سردمه گرمم کن - sardameh-garmam-kon" = I am cold, warm me up, It was used by prostitutes At that time there were no postal addresses, people used to put their name or their statue to claim the occupation of the home, like "Hassan's Home" so every name was followed by the word " jaa", later the tribe of yahoodies claimed the word "jaa" as their names to claim all the properties. Noah also picked the name "river" so they can also claim ownership of all the water bodies on land. Jesus also invented the Nail and Cross Joint to be used to build homes. Trinity is a Farsi word " سه گانگی - se-ghanegy " which means "[concept of] three [owners]". Father is the builder and the original owner of the house [there was no divorce and the mothers were automatically co owners with fathers), Sons will inherit the property to protect the mother and other siblings when the father is too old or is dead. Daughters were getting married and co-owned their husband's property. The Holy is " خالی - khali '' which means when the property is vacant and the word Spirit is " از بین رفت - az-bain-raft " which means building that is in ruins or was destroyed, in this state the Church will take ownership of the property and use it for single women, children and elders with no support. In the Concept of Trinity, God is the landlord. The Trinity was the base of the entire Christian and Western Civilization. The Council of Nicaea formalized Trinity as the official rule of the land and Constantin centralized and unified registering the properties (issuing deeds) and recording their owners' names, to that date registering and recording was done by local real estate agents and escrow companies of the time dominated by jews who were abusing and trafficking and abusing women and children who needed food and home. Virgin Mary means that Mary the mother of Jesus was a Virgin when married to Joseph, her virginity entitled her and Joseph to the ownership of the land and ability to pass the home to their son Jesus. The word Mashiach is a Farsi word " مال تو میشه - male-to-myshe " which means "It [Jerusalem] will be yours", if someone can prove that jews are the owner of Jerusalem then your war will be over. Mashiach is the same Arabic word as " ماشاالله " and Muslim use it often, it means that by working hard and doing a good job you will own your nice property. David is " دربان - darban " means "doorman/security guard/door keeper". [Mashiach] Ben David is " بی دربان - bee-darban " which means "no need for a doorman". Messiah is " مصالح - massaleh " = [construction] material, later it became " مسیر یاب - masser-yaab " which means path/direction/way Finder. Nazareth " نوزادگاه - nozadgah " which means Newborn nursery, Labor and delivery hospital and birth certificate registration [for legit children of married couples] Synagogue is " زن زادن جا - zan-zadan-ja " means where women can deliver baby, it was for delivering fatherless children and the children of rape victims or performing abortion. Delivered children were kept and were turned into slave soldiers, workers and the girls into sex slaves. Boys were tagged as slaved by tattoos and the girls by ear piercing. Ark of Covenant are Farsi words " آهنکن گاو نر - aahankan-gave-nar '' which means "Iron for Bull Cow" or "Plowshare". The wings are the accessories required to mount the plow. This was the shared/rental plow for the community and it was designed by Persians who extracted Iron from Iron ore for the first time, the name Iran is the same " آهن کار/ آهن دار - aahan-kar " means Black Smith" or "Those who have Iron".
This was very interesting to read, thank you for taking the time to post. Is it your assertion that a lot of the biblical tales become much more mundane when viewed in ancient languages of the region?
@@blank_3768 Yet are based on first hand accounts from his life passed on. The accounts from ancient historians are also relatively close to the time period even if after death, way too short a time for an entire man to be fabricated which is a phenomenon that takes centuries to occur. Occams razor dictates Jesus existed but was just a man with no actual magic
@@ManiacMayhem7256 while jesus certainly did exist. there’s no evidence the gospels are based off of first hand events. It’s far more likely they where created from folk knowledge of jesus.
To Jews at that time Messiahs aren't supposed to die a terrible death and are supposed to liberate them from oppression with divine will. So yes the 12 Apostles are telling the truth.
This is a pretty bad video. Instead of blathering about the untenability of the mythicist position on a general basis, you should go through the actual evidence there is that he was a historical person and also explain the methodology used to sift out the true elements. You need reliable primary sources, all else is irrelevant. There are a few independent sources of Jesus's existence.
That's the problem with just going through the actual evidence. It's the assumptions of what should be considered that matter. In ancient history, if we ignore all but "reliable primary sources", we lose nearly everything except bits of archeological evidence. Especially if we rule out sources that are likely to be biased - like for example any contemporary writing about an emperor or a student like Plato writing about a teacher. Primary sources are great when they exist, but antiquity is so poorly documented that very often even for great rulers, the only real information comes from histories or biographies written generations later.
It's Surprising that The Historians like Josephus, Pliny and other who are from the first century, Has Not written much on Jesus's life, his miraculous birth, Crucifixion and So called Resurrection.. except Few lines
As Robert Pirce has argued, the problem with Jesus is that once you eliminate the fantastical and obviously false stories surrounding him we are left wondering how he could ever have come down to us at all. Other "historical" figures are far more everyday men than Jesus. This problem can possibly be solved only if we identify with one of Josephus' messianic pretenders. The Egyptian is perhaps the best condidate. Otherwise there is no everyday Jesus distinct from the mythology.
If Jesus existed, you have to feel for him, a man with human parents and a wife named Mary who went around the country preaching who has been made into something he wouldn't have wanted, a messiah, a god, someone to worship like an idol. That is my opinion.
There may have been a rabbi-Jesus, but he and bible-Jesus have nothing but a name in common. Bible-Jesus is totally mythological. There was no virgin birth of Jesus. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus (though there is evidence that others were crucified). There is no extra-biblical evidence for any miracle performed by Jesus. There was no resurrection of Jesus. Rabbi-Jesus, on the other hand, may have had some followers, but he was no Messiah. Josephus wasn't even born when the crucifixion supposedly took place, and his writing about Jesus came decades later and is thought by experts to have been forged. Furthermore, even if Josephus' writings about Jesus were not forged, they do not and cannot attest to his divinity which is a fabrication.
You're responding to claims we didn't make - we don't argue here that the historical method backs any miraculous claims (all we can know is that Christians believed these claims). The similarities between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith have been debated for centuries and likely will for centuries more. As for evidence of his crucifixion, this is one of the things that we can absolutely know for certain about him as it is relayed in both Christian sources (which are historically valid for these limited purposes) and non-Christian works like those of Tacitus and Josephus. Certain aspects of Josephus are of course later interpolations but scholars have identified a historical core as legitimate to the original work. The fact that he was writing decades later is irrelevant because as mentioned we also accept works like Plutarch as primary sources though his biographies were written centuries after some of his subjects.
@@tribunateSPQR No, I'm not. I'm making an assertion, not a response to a claim. There was no bible-Jesus. That Jesus did not exist. There may have been a rabbi-Jesus. That is not a response to any claim made in your video. There was no crucifixion of Jesus. That claim was made by Christians and may have been repeated by historians as a Christian doctrine. Biblical sources are NOT historically accurate for these limited purposes. Biblical sources occasionally coincide with historical sources but are not historical themselves. The books of the bible are religious in nature, not historical in nature. They are not interchangeable except in the case of the history of religion. Therefore, there may be some historical accounts that mention the claims or dogma of a religious group without affirming the events actually took place. That is the case with the crucifixion. No historian affirmed that Jesus was crucified but that Christians say he was.
The author of the Gospel According to Saint John definitely witnessed the crucifixion of someone beaten & scourged as is described as happening to Christ. The proof is his description of the centurion thrusting his lance into Christ’s RIGHT side and seeing WATER AND BLOOD flow out. Something only an eyewitness could know, medical science tells us. Stabbing crucified victims was not standard practice. Doctors say that watery fluid would have built up & surrounded the heart in the pericardium sac in someone receiving all the wounds Christ did. No one could make up that medical fact, sorry.
Okay so I actually disagree with this analysis for several reasons 1. People writing about the existence of Christians and what they believe about Jesus after the fact doesn’t confirm he existed especially when at least one of those sources is in fact embellished 2. The problem with saying that any part of the Jesus narrative is true is extremely problematic because the issue is there is no extrapolating the historical Jesus from the Jesus presented in the New Testament like there is no way possible Jesus was mostly miraculous with some mundane aspects to his life like if you take out all the miraculous and just leave the realistic what is actually left? 3. There are zero not one eye witness to Jesus’s life or his ministry or what he taught zero not one. The literal only reliable source in the New Testament is Paul because he is the only one writing letters about Jesus in the first person and even he isn’t an eye witness he knew about Jesus through a “vision” he had on the road to Damascus and of course he knew Peter. The problem with saying that we know for sure that Jesus was absolutely 100% real is that I don’t think taking everything into account we have enough information on Jesus to verify his historicity with absolute certainty like it would be like if someone in the future found a Sherlock Holmes book and just assumed Sherlock Holmes definitely existed because we have people who talk about Sherlock Holmes in the past and we have books written about him it doesn’t make sense
I seriously doubt that all historians now automatically accept the historicity of Jesus as accepted, undeniable fact. Doubtless there are some who do not. After all, the modern system of recording history is at variance with the practice in (e.g.) Roman times, when unless facts were recorded by those who were there at the time (and who knew and understood the circumstances), most of "history" was written by people who were merely repeating what they had read elsewhere, or had been told. In other words, what they offered as "fact" was simply hearsay, and was therefore unreliable. I fail to be convinced by your very careful semantic constructions, persuasive though they may be. I grant that you may have a case, but as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out, and must remain so until time travel becomes genuinely possible. After all, so what? Convinced Christians believe that Jesus existed, and don't need any proof. As for me, the question is completely irrelevant.
The question is: why would anyone invent contemporary man to spread theological message? Why not invent stories about some other famous figure, another martyr? There was this rebel King Antigone, who met his end in same way as Jesus. Why not talk about him? Why doubt existnece of someone in first place if he appears in chronicles in the same century he was supposedly alive?
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *Why not invent stories about some other famous figure, another martyr* How do we know they didn't? We have no original gospels, would we even know them if we had them? Paul's letters were written a generation later and he complains about the "different Jesus'" other people are teaching. And remember, to Paul, Jesus would have been Yeshua -- the John Smith of 1st century Judea.
John E. Remsburg, in his classic book *"The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence"* (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived: Josephus, Juvenal, Lucanus, Philo-Judæus, Martial, Epictetus, Seneca, Persius, Hermogones Silius Italicus, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Statius, Arrian, Pliny the Younger, Ptolemy, Petronius, Tacitus Appian, Dion Pruseus, Justus of Tiberius, Phlegon, Paterculus, Apollonius, Phædrus, Suetonius, Quintilian, Valerius Maximus, Pausanias, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Florus Lucius, Columella, Pomponius Mela, Lucian, Valerius Flaccus, Appion of Alexandria,, Quintius Curtius, Damis, Theon of Smyrna, Aulus Gellius, Favorinus According to Remsburg, “Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Neither do any of these authors mention the Disciples or Apostles further embarrassment for apologists trying to explain the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. Now to cover the few mentions that Christian apologists have managed to dredge up over the period of their control of all written sources.
*Josephus* The Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is not merely “not entirely authentic” it is in fact entirely not authentic. The TF appears in the course of one of three stories told by Josephus about Pontius Pilate. In all three stories (with the notable exception of the TF) Josephus heaps opprobrium on Pilate, portraying him as a self-motivated, and thus solely-to-blame, callous agitator against the Jews and desecrator of the holiest temple to the god of the Jews, only to suddenly paint him as a weak-minded puppet of the Jewish authorities for a few lines that could come directly from the Gospel according to Luke, only to just as inexplicably and instantly revert to describing a Praefect so enamoured of his own authority that he was replaced by Caligula for being too despotic. the account of Pilate’s theft of temple money to fund an aqueduct is (with the exception of the TF) filled with specific details-the rioters shouting insults, the Roman soldiers going among the crowd in Jewish dress, the order to the demonstrators to disperse, the violence of the soldiers, and the bloody suppression of the riot. At each point Josephus reports not only what the various groups did, but why they did it, and what the causes and effects of their actions were. This account, like the other Pontius Pilate accounts, has a narrative structure. The aqueduct story sans TF is an account in which a situation is established and the characters interact, and there is a resolution. The account has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The other two Pilate episodes (the legionary standards episode and the Samaritan uprising) have the same structure, that is. The careful crafting of sequences of events and “cause and effect” is an essential part of Josephus’s skill as a historian. By contrast the Testimonium has no such plot. From its position in Josephus’s “Antiquities of the Jews” it does not qualify as a narrative at all. The Testimonium could not be understood except by someone who already knew, understood, and above all *believed* the gospel accounts of Jesus and the context of early Christianity, and more importantly it breaks into an already established account of Pilate’s anti-Jewish actions by portraying him as an easily intimidated puppet of the Sanhedrin It does not explain any of the specifically Jewish terms used such as “Messiah” or “Christ” which would be unknown to the target audience Josephus was aiming his “Antiquities of the Jews” to. The Testimonium gains its intelligibility not through its detailed reporting of novel events but by virtue of being a “repetition of the familiar” that is to say familiarity to third century Christian readers, as opposed to first century Romans. It is not just that the Testimonium is exposes its Christian evangelism by its adherence to the Gospels, it is that without knowing (and most likely also believing) the Gospels the passage is meaningless. Likewise with the “Who is called Christ” phrase, there is no explanation of why somebody would call the brother of James “Oiled” which is what the word “Christos” means. To a first century Roman, wrestlers were anointed in oil before starting a contest. If you read the entire story in which the line appears certain facts become apparent. First the timeframe is set in that it occurred between the death of Fesus but before the appointment of Albinus, putting the events before AD62 but no earlier than AD61. In the account James (brother of Jesus) was stoned to death at the orders of the Sanhedrin under the leadership of the Sadducee high priest Ananus. As a consequence a deputation of concerned citizens intercepted Albinus as he was travelling to Jerusalem to assume office to make their complaint which Albinus upheld and ordered king Herod Agrippa to remove Ananus from office. As a result Agrippa subsequently appointed Jesus as high Priest. During the three paragraph narrative of the event, Josephus uses the term “Saduccee” and promptly refers back to a previous use of the word while also explaining to the reader what a “Saduccee” was. Josephus also goes into detail about the elder Ananus, his five sons, and their proud family tradition of being elevated to office as high priest. Josephus devotes three entire paragraphs containing plenty of information while reporting a relatively unimportant dispute in the Sanhedrin and yet you would have people believe that he would limit himself to a single paragraph of gushing adoration towards one of many claimants to messianic status, especially considering how dismissive his three paragraphs dedicated to Athronges the shepherd were. Compare that account of how James died with the account by Hegessippus in which James’ death came about from a spontaneous incident in which he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple. Like all good Christian martyrs he survived and rather than either begging for his life or just running away, he prayed for divine forgiveness for those attacking him before being clubbed to death by a Fuller (Laundryman). Hegesippus puts that death as taking place immediately before the siege of Jerusalem which took place in AD70. Since both James (Jacob) and Jesus (Jeshua) were very common names in that place and at that time it is more likely that the two sets of brothers were different people than that there was one set of time-travelling brothers. For example, I know of two pairs of brothers named Peter and Christopher, neither of them being the Hitchens brothers.
*Tacitus* Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a prominent Roman historian and politician who rose through the political ranks to become Proconsul of Asia. As such he would have never got the title of Pontius Pilate wrong any more than Winston Churchill, also a historian and politician would have described David Lloyd George as being the President of the United Kingdom at the beginning of the “Great War”. Most of what is known about Tacitus comes from his lengthy correspondences with his friend the governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, who I will mention in his own segment should one become necessary. The “Tacitus” quote and its description of the persecution of Christians, using them as novelty streetlighting contradicts all other sources of information including “Acts of the Apostles” which shows that by the time of Nero’s reign Christians were free to worship openly as long as they “rendered unto Caesar” The thread that runs through “Acts” is of Jewish persecution of Christians and Roman punishment of Jews for their treatment of Christians, as well as the edict of Claudius issued in AD41, and that certainly accords with Roman policies on religion and religious tolerance before Constantine’s day. The Edict of Caudius issued in around AD48 expresses Jewish rights, but includes an instruction for the Jews to respect similar rights for followers of other faiths _”Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims: . . .Therefore it is right that also the Jews, who are in all the world under us, shall maintain their ancestral customs without hindrance and to them I now also command to use this my kindness rather reasonably and not to despise the religious rites of the other nations, but to observe their own laws.”_ and the letter to the Jews living in Alexandria goes into greater detail _”Wherefore, once again I conjure you that, on the one hand, the Alexandrians show themselves forbearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and dishonour none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of the Deified Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have sanctioned; and on the other hand, I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented), and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions. Otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of which is a general plague infecting the whole world. If, desisting from these courses, you consent to live with mutual forbearance and kindliness, I on my side will exercise a solicitude of very long standing for the city, as one which is bound to us by traditional friendship.”_ The “Tacitus” entry correctly identifies the fire of Rome as a flashpoint (pun not intended) of resentment, but it was not resentment of “Chrestians” but rather of the revolting Jews (Jewish Revolt AD64-AD70) and since the Christians had pivoted away from Judaism they were not looked on with the suspicion that fell on the Jews in Rome as a consequence of the Jewish revolt. In fact many Christians were recruited from among the Gentile (Pagan) populations of the first century Roman empire. It also runs counter to the letter from Pliny the younger to Trajan. As a person living in Nero’s Rome as a child Pliny the younger would have had definite memories of Nero’s novelty streetlamps had such actually existed. At best, if authentic, “Tacitus” would only demonstrate the *existence* of Christians, not the accuracy of their claims or beliefs. There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again discusses any potential Neronian persecution of Christians in any other of his books that form the Annals, yet there are several paragraphs covering Jewish arrogance towards non-Jews and Tacitus takes exception to the Jews carrying out live animal sacrifices of animals that are sacred to the gods of their closest neighbours, for example in “Histories 5.4” Tacitus states _”In order to secure the allegiance of his people in the future, Moses prescribed for them a novel religion quite different from those of the rest of mankind. Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral. In the innermost part of the Temple, they consecrated an image of the animal which had delivered them from their wandering and thirst, choosing a ram as beast of sacrifice to demonstrate, so it seems, their contempt for Hammon. The bull is also offered up, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis.”_ It is notable that no other authors, Pagan, Jewish, or even Christian know anything of the use of Christians to light the darkness either, indeed absolutely no ancient Christian apologists made even the slightest use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Like the Testimonium Flavianum, the “Tacitus” entry was unknown to Origen in AD248, and it was also unknown to Eusebius, the author of the Testimonium Flavianum. In fact Origen admitted in AD248 in his defence of Christianity titled “Contra Celsum” that there was no mention of Jesus outside of the gospels, and as late as the ninth century Photius the Ecumenical Bishop of Constantinople admitted that Josephus had never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and also made no mention of the persecution of Christians under Nero. Other Christians who made absolutely no reference to Tacitus include Marcion, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irnaeus, Polycrates, Tertullian Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Augustine of Hippo. All of those Christian apologists were desperate to find non-biblical sources demonstrating at the very least the existence of Jesus, and Eusebius had expressed his willingness to lie and fabricate “evidence” yet nobody knew of that supposed entry in Annals 15.44 before it was first referenced in the 14th century when Johannes de Spire first published his translation of the Annals of Tacitus in Venice. Robert Taylor (author of “Diegesis”, published in 1834) believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.
*Suetonius* I will start by noting that Christian apologists such as J. P. Holding list Suetonius as one of the lesser value references compared to the forgeries of Tacitus and Josephus Here is the first of the two relevant quotes: _“As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of _*_Chrestus,_*_ he expelled them from Rome.”_ The text of this quote has been altered to change the name “Chrestus” which is a Greek name meaning “Good” to read “Christos” a Greek word meaning “Anointed” that wasn’t a name and was not applied to Jesus by Roman authorities until Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire in the early fourth century. The author also speaks of “Chrestus” in the present tense, that he was physically present and inciting riots at the time Claudius chose to take action. Bearing in mind that in AD41 Claudius made the following edict _” Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims ... Therefore it is right that also the Jews, who are in all the world under us, shall maintain their ancestral customs without hindrance and to them I now also command to use this my kindness rather reasonably and not to despise the religious rites of the other nations, but to observe their own laws.“_ That edict granted the Jewish people the freedom to exercise their own religion but imposed on them a duty to respect the religions of other nations under the Roman empire. If the Jews were acting against the Christians in the manner described in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (Itself a dubious claim) then it is entirely within reason that they would be punished so expelling troublesome Jews and their living agitator named “Good” seems an eminently practical and lenient solution to a problem of civil disturbance that goes against the “Render unto Caesar” attitudes the gospels ascribe to Jeshua bin Maryam. This indicates that far from being evidence of the existence of Jesus, it is at best possible evidence of early Christians who were not *persecuted* by Rome but rather protected *by* Rome from Jewish persecution. The second quote from Suetonius also does not mention Jesus, but refers to Christians supposedly being persecuted under Nero, and yet makes no mention of the Jews who were by that time in open revolt against the Roman empire over a matter arising from the excessive demands made by the Jews on behalf of their religion. The Jews, who had requested Augustus Caesar annex their country rather than be ruled by their own Archelaus were now telling their rulers that symbols of Roman rule such as Roman coinage or Roman imperial insignia on Roman soldiers or their uniforms and equipment were not acceptable to the Jews and must be removed forthwith. I personally suspect a spot of Christian revisionism of the “second” reference, some Christian copyist “modifying” the criticism of the Zealots excessive religious demands against Rome in breach of the edict of Claudius to portray it as an attack on the Christians Compare _”During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city”_ with “Punishment was inflicted on the *Zealots* a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”. The Romans under Nero would have had no objection to religious zeal from a religion whose leader had supposedly preached _” Pay your taxes, in full and on time”_ there is nothing “mischievous about that but Roman authorities would have strenuously objected to members of a Jewish movement of the first century AD that fought against Roman rule in Palestinia as being incompatible with their strict monotheism and the ultimate power of יְהֹוָה.
*Pliny the Younger* Gaius Plinius Caecilius Cilo also known as Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus AD61-AD113) was a Roman lawyer and magistrate, eventually rising to the rank of Consul and becoming governor of Bithynia. As a child Pliny alternated between living at his uncles home in Como, and his home in Rome (this becomes important later) He lived with his uncle (Pliny the Elder) and was eventually adopted by him as a result of his own father having died when Pliny was a small child. Following an uprising in AD68, Nero committed suicide and after a short civil war Vespasian emerged as the emperor after a year in which four people briefly became emperor..Vespasian was a close friend of Pliny the Elder and his accession to Imperial purple made both Plinies very powerful men. When Pliny the younger was eventually appointed as Governor of Bithynia and almost as soon as he was installed in office accusations were levelled against the minority Christians, that they were criminals who refused to offer sacrifices to the local gods, that they were cannibalistic and had incestuous relationships. Since Rome had policies of religious tolerance failing to offer sacrifices to the majority gods was not a crime as long as the rights of the worshippers of those other gods were respected, so it is entirely possible that the charges were brought purely in an attempt to cause Pliny to make a bad decision. Pliny wrote to his friend and sponsor Trajan for any information on what crimes Christians may be guilty of. Bearing in mind that he had lived in Rome during Nero’s term as emperor it would be fair to say that Pliny would have remembered Nero’s novelty streetlamps *had they actually existed* and the fact that Pliny had the need to write asking what crimes the Christians had committed is evidence that the claims inserted into Tacitus were a later “Torture porn” example of Christians painting themselves as past victims in order to “justify” their own atrocities against Pagans once Christianity started to become powerful. The letter to Trajan is very solid evidence of the existence of the Christians of Bithynia, to the extent that I would be more than happy to admit that it is proof of the existence of the Christians of Bithynia and it also lists the reported *beliefs* of the Christians of Bithynia. What it does not do is offer any evidence to corroborate the accuracy of those beliefs any more than an article about the religious beliefs of former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is evidence that the lost tribes of Israel moved to pre-Columbian North America.
I had never heard of Remsburg or his work so I googled him and it looks like this book is from 1909 and that Remsburg himself has no qualifications in the field of ancient history. The video was about why all modern historians reject the standard imposed by mythicists as inconsistent with historical inquiry. Sharing outdated work doesn’t refute the thesis here, just shines light on how few are willing to make the claim in 2024
@@exterminans He's quite correct. Only mentions of Jesus outside the New Testament are decades later, and likely just relaying second hand information from Christians.
I assume you're using "gospels" as a stand-in for the entire New Testament here as he Jesus appears in these canonical documents as well - but even if that was all we had and we acknowledge the NT's limitations, it would still be valid to infer at minimum his existence and certain facts about his life. Fortunately we have other sources (as I mentioned) and these confirm the broad details. It isn't evidence on par with Caesar of course but it is evidence in keeping with what we would expect for such a figure.
@@tribunateSPQR None of the canonical and non-canonical documents are contemporary to the time of Jesus' supposed lifetime. We call that sort of writing "hearsay".
in the old days you didnt need proof, you followed the teachings and if done correctly you could have experience with the heavens yourself, thats all the proof you need. the teachings were not written down, the problem with writing them down is anyone can get the writings and if in the wrong hands use them for destruction, such as conquest, persecution, burning people alive, and torture inquisitions. which is exactly what happened.
Could not get past tthe first five minutes. The ad hominem opening was bad enough; but., when you followed it up with strawman argumentation, I lost it. Have you bothered to 4ead any of the academic literature questioning Jesus historicity?
Religion or belief's are a part oh human civilization. It's an anser to questions no one can answer and a way to keep or help keep people on the right path in life. It gives people hope and helps them cope with death... it does a lot of good things for the needy in most cases. So is Jesus real? I wouldn't know but if it makes people deal better with thier lives to believe he is than i feel that is absolutely fine. During hard times or desperate times in my life i have preyed for strength or guidance and it helped me feel better and helped me to deal with the situations.
I'm glad you said this. I hear people dismiss King Arthur all the time like this. Even though he's mentioned in king lists as the King of Glamorgan Wales...lists (the Brutes of England) that still survive to this day!
PhD Scholars that believe the Gospel Jesus never existed; Thomas L. Brodie, (His 2012 book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Thomas L. Thompson, Robert M Price, Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, George Albert Wells, (1975 book, Did Jesus Exist?, Earl Doherty, John M. Allegro, Alvar Ellegård, Archibald Robertson, Albert Schweitzer, On the Historicity of Jesus: by Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, Gerd Lüdemann, his book Paul, the founder of Christianity, Philip R. Davies, R. Joseph Hoffmann, Dan Barker, his book From Preacher to Atheist, John E. Remsburg, his book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, H.H. Mangasarian, his book, "The Truth about Jesus, is he a Myth? among many others.
Jesus existed in the form of 5 or 6 guys: 1) Jesus ben Ananias (preacher in Jerusalem from 62 to 69 CE) 2) Jesus ben Damneus (High Priest in 62 CE) 3) Jesus ben Sapphias (leader of fishermen and beggars in Galillee in 66/67 CE) 4) Jesus ben Pantera (Talmud and Celsus) 5) The Egyptian (in the time of Feliz, around 55 CE) 6) Jesus, the Nazorean (time of Pilate, around 30 CE) Apparently, Jesus, the Nazorean, was the chosen avatar by Christians. In the Nicean/Constantinoplan creed they made compulsory to believe that Jesus was crucified by Pilate
If you’re sa theses Christian doctrines came out of Nicaea then you would have to ignore ancient Christian writings around the middle first century and the late second century
@@xdaantihero Theophilus of Antioch, justin martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Tertullian, and etc. you can also watch a past live stream with Jay Dyer and Michael Jones where they go over apostolic fathers and their quotes about the Trinity.
@@kaianuvaldivia Every single last one of them existed after Jesus was crucified. They wasn't witnesses to him or his miracles, or his apostles. We don't know who wrote those gospels but we do know Paul's writings is the earliest so he's technically your father.
there’s no evidence jesus rose from the dead. There is how ever evidence that there was a subsection of jews at the time who believed the end times where coming and that all the dead would rise from the graves.
What do you believe is the most convincing evidence for the historical Jesus?
For me, the strongest evidence is that there are so many different sources that talk about him and his followers, not just the gospels, but also other writers like Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and the Talmud.
They all agree on some basic facts, like that Jesus lived in Palestine, taught and healed people, had disciples, and was killed by the Romans. I think that’s more convincing than the mythicists, who seem to have unrealistic expectations and double standards for historical proof.
The twelve men plus Saint Paul went the rest of their lives preaching what they heard and saw, they gained nothing from it and suffered horribly for it. 12 of the 13 being killed over it. Men dont throw away their lives so easily and for nothing.
There is no evidence for any existance, Jesus is a composite satirical character made up of several jewish messianic leaders from the first century. There is ample proof the Gospels are Roman engineered propaganda.
What evidence? Contemporary sources? Even circumstantial evidence?
@@GimpCentargumentum ad populum fallacy.
I like it! Not just a defense of Jesus' historicity, but a passionate and reasoned defense of history itself as a discipline.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I view the two as intricately connected since the adoption of double standards is indicative of disdain for history as we have actually received it and a slap in the face of the real men and women who lived, died and sacrificed to make our world possible.
Happy Easter!
Named after the Indo European dawn goddess, yes happy Eostre.
Wasn't so happy for jesus
@@seanstott6168 Rising from the dead, and making all of your friends happy, and having accomplished the most grueling quest in the universe, with a future of reigning as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, forever and ever, not so happy for Jesus? Really?
@@S.J.L who cares who it might be named after, it what it celebrates that matters
@@liljade53 Agreed, we're all celebrating the elemental divinity of the dawn, spring and spiritual awakening. Glad you agree. Namaste compadre.
The burden of proof for the existence of someone named Jesus in Judea who led a religious movement is pretty low. Jesus was a common name, and there were plenty of religious movements in Judea. It's also not very hard to believe that the Romans would have crucified such a person.
not a bad point
It's a much easier explanation than to believe that someone simply made the guy up, or some committee. In all fairness, that is not the position that "serious" mythicists hold, but is the one the average Reddit mythicist has. The "serious" mythicist would say the Jesus Paul talks about was a metaphorical, spiritual figure that was later turned into a flesh and bone character with time. Which again is a much more complicated explanation.
Yep. By that standard King Arthur is also real.
@@rosca_21 The Christian Myths don't make as much sense as the Greek Myths
😂😂😂
Great presentation and it's surprising to see so much pushback in the comments for these noncontroversial claims. If you argued a specific interpretation of the historical jesus I could understand there being a stronger reaction but not to the simple claim that a man existed
in the right timing the right people come out of the woodworks
what claims? He doesn't even present an argument for historicity outside the gospels. This is a terrible history video. A shame, because he could have done a proper one, and instead went for a sunday class diatribe. Shame.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT The fact you liken this to sunday school kinda lays bare exactly why you hold the position you hold, namely that you have a problem with the religion of Christianity.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, but maybe when he is thirsty enough, he will open his eyes and see a stream flowing in front of him
"Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." Gospel of John, chapter 4.
Many lives have been changed over the past 2000 years because of a "myth". Headhunters gave up their ancestral violence, cannibals changed their menu, Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion still used today by NASA, while looking for the star of Bethlehem, and countries (like the USA) were founded just for the freedom to worship Him.
Cold case detective J.Warner Wallace tried to prove the myth theory to his wife using all of his cold case detective skills, and he now has dedicated his life to letting the world know the result of his investigation; Jesus lived, and the Gospels are eye witness accounts.
A wise man is never surprised at the stupidity of the COMMENTS SECTION
~ Me, just a second ago
14:10 bro let the voices win and decided to throw in his diss track at the back of the album
After 15 minutes of trying to be reasonable, I just had to let it out
@@tribunateSPQR I laughed hard. That was a very funny addition. Thank you!
@@tribunateSPQR a man after my own heart! Sometimes you just have to let it out!
Man's really said in the most conservative and robotic voice and language possible......"Bear with me for a second. Allow me to _put_ you all on game. 🤓"
"You're a F.A.P. You're a F.A.P. You're a F.A.P.
False Asinine Provoker mixing history with gahd." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And honestly, the Gospels are not even that late as people say, and they certainly draw from even earlier sources that could very well be almost contemporaneous, in fact the latest of the four, that of John, is the one we actually have historical confirmation that was really written by him.
they have to be after 70ad because all are derived from mark and he mentions the jewish war which was after 70ad.....john was written in the 2nd century by multiple authors so thats just false
Hmm… I’m sure this topic won’t raise any controversy at all…
We genuinely didn't expect it to be controversial - we're presenting mainstream scholarship on the issue and a conclusion that is shared by a wide range of experts, from atheists to practicing Christians. The fact that there is still so much misinformation here and references to faulty sources shows why the video was necessary though
Among idiots yes
@@tribunateSPQR okay that's bull LOL you literally are here saying you're trying to be as harsh as possible. You can't say just because we lack definite information that people who doubt are denying reality. Is the denial unlikely? sure. but is it possible? also yes. sure mythacists aren't acting in good faith, but neither are you here. So i can't consider your argument without a bias inclination
@@remimk Why are you trying to make the mythicists look like they have any credibility here? The standard means of ancient historiography confirm Jesus as a historical person just as much as Siddhartha Gautama, John the Baptist, Muhammad, Rabbi Akiva, and Pythagoras are. It’s the mythicist who is in the wrong here, because they start off with a conclusion and read that into the evidence. Or go off into the deep end and call everything a forgery, or cook up conspiracy theories about the authors at hand and try to do some weird pseudo-psychoanalysis of people from 2,000 years ago. They don’t actually read the evidence that’s survived to us in their obvious plain reading, because if they did they wouldn’t be mythicists anymore.
@@remimk Well uhhhh...... about that....😅😅😅
The creator was harsh with this one, but if the situation pissed him off that much, it's tough to knock him. He did just say that people said no to historians who came at this situation with a legit methodology that was able to cut through a large amount of the bullshit, even the very biases of the sources of the material examined.
You can't control how that makes him feel, and he can't either. If he feels some type of way because people are blasting methods that were used to prove many other historical people, it's hard to hold him.
Plus it's whatever in all honesty; his emotions getting caught up in it doesn't distort the message. And you can't say he's not acting in good faith either because he showed the Carfax. Mans dropped many receipts from multiple cultures in and out the faith that substantiated Jesus. And the examining methods allowed the gospels to be used as a legit source, because they could filter out the bias now.
What did the creator do wrong????? 😂😂😂😂
It’s bizarre to me how a holy figure like Buddha can be respected even by those who don’t adhere to his beliefs, yet someone as loving and wonderful as Jesus is hated..
This presentation was exceptionally executed! Ive listened to alot on Jesus existence, but you brought points in that are highly balanced and provocative! Im a believer, but my husband is not- YET! YOUR presentaion has empowered me, to drive him towards a more realistic stance regarding his cynism. Thank you sir! 4 Stars for you !
Pam L.
i don't think i've ever met someone in real life who argues jesus didn't exist. i didn't realize it was that controversial. i don't believe he had holy powers, but sure he was probably a dude.
They're here in the comments
Why they* was probably a dude? Why could they* not be a woman? Or a non-binary person? Misogynistic transphobic tr*sh...
Yeah, it's almost entirely a small group of very online people that have no understanding of the historical method and are primarily motived by a strong distaste for the modern religion of Christianity more than anything else. Basically angry athiest teenagers. As said in the video, acknowledging the historiocity of Jesus doesn't involve any faith or religion or even thinking that there was anything supernatural about him whatsoever. But they are SO consumed by anger at religion that even admitted that small amount is a step too far. Their desire is to humiliate the religion and anyone who follows it as following a myth, and they don't care whatsoever about what historians think.
@@Tinil0 Sorry, I but it is exactly the opposite, and this video is a perfect example. It is full of fallacies, presents NO argument outside the gospels, and basically exits stage left. He could do a nice job, but chose the cowardly way. threw a hissy fit.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT Did you not watch the whole video? He presented arguments outside of the gospels.
I did not know Jesus mythosist where such a big problem over in America until i check the comments. Sorry to hear you guys have deal with that. Can't think of a single scholar that holds this position. Not even the overly critical Bart Ehrman.
It's a position advocated entirely on the internet - ask any of them to name a real scholar who holds this view and they'll name a 50 year old book by someone with qualifications in a completely different field
He was a being created by God that had no consciousness. No man can have the power of God. So basically a shell to carry out plans. God doesn’t really care about religion or worship, it was just a manner to subdue early barbarians. All will be explained in the upcoming rapture on God’s 14th billionth birthday. Y’all should drink up, God is banning alcohol after the rapture.
Ironically, Richard Carrier - who employs the historical method - is such a scholar who thinks Jesus is a myth. But even he thinks there's a 33% chance there was a historical Jesus.
His point is: Jesus could be a figure like Robin Hood, General Ludd or John Frum: various real people combined with myth (based on Jewish "angelology", Jesus as the high priest in heaven). Carrier does away with Josephus by pointing out what is mentioned in this video: that the record has been doctored by later Christians.
Carrier hopes that slowly this position will become the scholarly consensus - similar how Moses was revised from historical person to myth. Whether he's right... only time will tell.
Note: this video would be much more credible if it would not start with framing the mythicist position as inconsistent, untrustworthy and having a hidden agenda.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 No. Carrier simply concludes that Jesus was a COMPLETE myth SOLELY because people (Greeks) years after his life attached commonly known mythological "tropes" to Jesus in order to embellish his life and make it relatable to the Hellenic world of the Mediterranean. Carrier points to the stories of other completely mythological characters that are VERY similar to the stories attributed to Jesus and thus declares that Jesus MUST have been entirely a myth as well. Jesus cannot be a myth while being 33% an historical figure. He is either a bonified historical figure or a complete myth. Can't have both!
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 I don't want to take your simplified descriptions for his actual arguments to be fair to him, but that sounds like EXTREMELY sloppy scholarship. Especially discounting Josephus entirely, when a single one of the references to Jesus was doctored, it was OBVIOUSLY doctored, we have no problems telling what was doctored and what wasn't, and we use otherwise doctored documents all the time as historical evidence. It having an obvious part doctored long afterwards is not a valid reason to discount Josephus. The comparison to Moses is nice because it just further shows how the mythicist position is flawed, in that it was quite easy to come to the conclusion of Moses's mythological status for all the reasons that you can't about Jesus.
This doesn't even count the fact that Carrier is considered a fringe and controversial "historian". He cannot be held up as an example of a respected historian supporting the mythicist position simply because he isn't respected and his work is near universally criticized as problematic at best.
As an agnostic, the historical person of Jesus has always fascinated me. What did this person actually do or say that lead to the accounts that would later find themselves into writings? What were his intentions? Was he simply a philanthropist, perhaps a skilled healer? Or was he a raging narcissist who did indeed claim to be a higher power, and people believed him? We will probably never know, but it's fascinating to wonder
Or he was exactly who he said he was
could you please add more content to your actual content? I would have much preferred if of the 20 minutes which compose this video more than 5 were dedicated to the actual historicity of Jesus rather than explaining over and over the same approach adopted by historians with much petulance
Even if a mythology develops over time for an historical figure, that does not mean that the historical figure was just a complete myth entirely.
Correct. We tell the “cherry tree” story about George Washington, but this doesn’t invalidate the existence of the man himself
@@tribunateSPQR Well said!
But it makes historical existence of the person a moot point. If there was a man named Yeshua in 1st century Judea (there were probably dozens, the name was so common), but he didn't do anything the bible says he did, what difference does it make if he was historical?
@@druidriley3163 Sure. Just because someone by the name of Yeshua is mentioned in an ancient document doesn't mean he was THE Yeshua (Jesus of the New Testament).
No, they deny his existence entirely.
It’s important to remember that the Gospels - themselves - are sources written by people who knew the Disciples of Jesus or were written by the Disciples themselves.
The Pauline letters are known to have been written by Paul the Apostle, lending further credence to the authenticity of the Bible.
After that point, the entire matter concerning miracles and Jesus’s resurrection are up to personal interpretation. From a historian’s perspective, we cannot definitively say that they did or did not happen as all we have to go by are the accounts of the Apostles. However, outside of this, we can say - for certain - that Jesus was real and that Jesus was highly influential in swaying thousands of Jews towards him.
First sentence is 100% false. The Gospels were written anonymously, decades after the events they describe, by authors trained in Greek rhetoric (i.e. not by Galilean fishermen). They do not read at all like independent eyewitness reports, as the synoptics rely on one another for large numbers of verbatim passages, and recount events at which no apostles were present (trial before Pilate, for example). Gospel of John is even later. Also note that we have no first or second century manuscripts of any of the Gospels, other than small fragments, so we have no way of knowing that the texts we have weren't altered. The names that the Gospels appear under today were applied later, and we have no good evidence that they are accurate.
Paul says explicitly that he did not base any of his ideas on conversations with any witnesses to Jesus, and in fact disparages Peter as a "nobody." Instead, he tells us all of his information about Jesus came to him in visions.(Galatians 1:12) Paul is therefore not an eyewitness either.
The fact that the Gospels were originally written anonymously is well known among non-apologist biblical scholars.
@@jamesheartney9546 The ending of Mark 16 and the beginning of John 8 wasn't in the original Greek. The beginning of John 8 isn't in the Aramaic NT.
Cannot remember that. The gospels were written at least a decade after his alleged crucifixion, and had authors unknown.
@@jamesheartney9546 it sounds like your standard for an eyewitness account is someone journaling either as it happens or shortly after.
3 decades is nothing.
My 9 year old son passed away last year. In 30 years, I could still give you a solid account of his life, and especially the day he passed.
A guy rises from the dead and you discredit the gospels because of a 30 year gap.
They fact that everything in them was not witnessed by the author doesnt discredit the eyewitnessing
As my son lived, I heard stories about things he did while I wasnt there. I would include them in any biography I wrote about him, does this mean I was not an eyewitness to his life?
@@jamesheartney9546>The Gospels were written anonymously
there is no evidence of this. all existing manuscripts have the authors listed afaik
>The names that the Gospels appear under today were applied later, and we have no good evidence that they are accurate.
how do we know they were applied later when there are no existing manuscripts from the 1st or 2nd century? that's completely baseless conjecture
You keep claiming there is historical evidence, yet you fail to show it. Why not quote sources? Give us, as they say, "book, chapter and verse" of historical books that contain authentic references of Jesus.
thank you, I knew there will be someone pointing that out :) imo this video is a lot of demagogy
The crucifixion of Jesus is an example of an event that meets the criterion of embarrassment. This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and advocates of the criterion claim this method of execution is therefore the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment#Examples
I am an atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural, but I believe the Jesus story is very loosely based on a real person.
@@kenmcnutt2it’s about belief not evidence.
@@erichaynes5826 depends on if we are talking supernatural claims or not.
Josephus, the antiquities of the Jews, book 18 chapter 3
“63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Actually we have better evidence for the existence of Pilate, including a stela with his name and mentions by contemporary historians. We also have better evidence for, say, Spartacus.
Can you list some sources for the existence of Pontius Pilate
No true at all. There are more than 14 extra biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus. He is the best attested ANE historicity figure bar none.
So Spartacus mostly having two biographies written 70 years later is better than 16 written sources about Jesus within only a couple decades after his life? Jesus has one at the earliest 16 years later. That's the timeframe between 9/11 and the 2016 election. Quit lying.
I am Spartacus.
I'm not a mythicist, but this guy leans too far in the other direction. We don't have history of Alexander until after his death, but we have a dozen godamed cities named after him. You're boy doesn't get special treatment
And Jesus has hundreds of people believing him around the globe a day after his death.
What the hell do you mean 'leaning too far in the other direction'? You mean simply acknowledging the consensus opinion of virtually all historians of antiquity? As opposed to the ramblings of fringe anti-theist types and esoteric quacks?
I don't think you get to disparage Jesus from the historical record.
The Roman texts simply repeat the gospels or the belief of the christians in the gospels. The fact gospels are not direct Christian fabrications does not mean there is an actual Jesus. Those Roman texts would need to be independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, providing new details, actual testimonies. But zero contemporary Roman historian ever mentioned Jesus. Paul, the only contemporary to have written about Jesus, only ever met people who had seen Jesus only in visions and revelations.
Josephus, a Jewish Pharisee, the antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter 3
“63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
@@turturkeykey3403
Actually, that quote was suspected to be a Christian fabrication. Here's the real quote:
"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"
This is what the Historian Tacitus said about Jesus:
"Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."
based on eye witnesses
@@neomatrix4412 yes, hundreds of eyewitnesses many of whom were put to death yet would not recant what they saw
So long winded. Just be honest, say you accept the non contemporary sources of Jesus as validating his existence and his wandering preaching, and that the New Testament writings also validate his existence. For me, no contemporaneous sources, no validation. It is not important anyway. What is important is the foundation of Christianity, the ministry, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the messianic nature of Jesus, and his godhood. If Christians accept that then accepting his existence follows. I know Muslims accept Jesus or Isa as a prophet, even his virgin birth. But that isn't validation of Isa just a long line of repeated stories.
So Spartacus has no contemporary sources. Does that mention we should give him no validation as a historical figure either?
Hannibal has zero contemporary literary sources. He only has one inscription from Rome that names him and a stronghold of his. That's it. The written annals of his life are completed 63 years after his death. Does he become largely fictional, too?
Oh, and by the way, if it's not important, why is there such a small yet determined cult of people wanting to make Jesus non-historical? Why are the first impulse thoughts of internet atheists to call Jesus of Nazareth a fictional character created by a plate full of suspects for incoherent and contradicting reasons?
Why is this conspiracy theory spread around across the web if it isn't important to people?
Good video fellas. Kept the focus in exactly the right place.
much appreciated, thank you!
This channel is mad underrated.
thank you! Every comment helps us just that much more so I appreciate you taking the time to give positive feedback
You only get one vote. No such thing as underrated.
Great video on an interesting topic! You definitely got a chuckle out of me when you shared your personal thoughts too
Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah that just came out as I was writing due to my sheer frustration at having to cover such an inane topic in such depth
Happy Easter y'all.
The Odyssey and Iliad were written down centuries after the events they described and were considered aprocryphal until Schliemann found Troy in th 19th century.
Indeed. And does anyone believe the discovery of Troy makes the Odyssey and Illiad historical documents that prove the existence of Greek gods?
@@druidriley3163 Of course not. But they provide evidence for the Trojan War and the possible existence of some of the humans mentioned in the two sagas. Bear in mind that if Jesus existed, it does not prove that he was a god.
@@nickd4310 Well sure, historians have not doubted some of the characters in the bible mentioned were real -- Herod, Pilate. Roman emperor - but the main character?
@@druidriley3163 The title of the video is "How do we know Jesus existed," not whether God exists. An historian can conclude on the balance of probabilities that an historical Jesus existed without believing in gods. Alternatively, a religious person may believe Jesus was a God without any evidence for his existence.
@@nickd4310 Many people believe Jesus=God. Keep reading the comments and you'll see. *historian can conclude on the balance of probabilities that an historical Jesus existed without believing in gods* I'd rather a historian use evidence, not probabilities on the existence of a figure from antiquity.
...I'm sorry, did you bring up the criterion of embarrassment? That's an infamous fundie canard. We are not in a position to know in the modern day what people of that time would be embarrassed by. What's more, sometimes people deliberately include embarrassing details into their embellished stories, specifically to humanize themselves and appear more trustworthy. Trying to say "this detail is embarrassing to the author, therefore they would have only included it if it REALLY happened" is basically nonsensical from a historical analysis standpoint.
I have just watched the entire video and I'm sure he didn't bring up that criterion.
@@ErickSoares3 I'm away from my computer, but listen again for the word "embarrassment."
It's there. 7:02@@ErickSoares3
I would have to disagree here - the criterion of embarrassment is used by a broad range of scholars (for example it was one of the chief criterions endorsed by the Jesus Seminar). It is also be used by believing Christian scholars (some of whom may misuse it) to shore up the authenticity of certain passages, but this alone does not invalidate it as there is wide scholarly backing for the approach. It cannot and should not however take primacy over other criterion and must instead be used in concert with them to develop a nuanced portrait.
As you mentioned however, it is not without its flaws and shortcomings - all the criterion have some issues inherent in their application and unfortunately the nature of the evidence always invokes a degree of subjectivity that can lead to vastly different portraits of Jesus.
I am not sure if Jesus existed or not. I lean toward that he did. But your logic for saying so is not correct. By your logic the characters in the Book of Mormon are also real. When characters are created to peddle religion the standards are not the same methodology.
Are there any sources critical of the characters in the book of Mormon?
@@TheHorseOutside the book of Mormon claims characters from an alien war in the Americas 6000 years ago. It's not exactly rooted in science. There are tons of archeological findings that beg to differ so yea.
@rogerxbannon5986 do there exist any sources outside of the book of Mormon that describe characters from the book of Mormon A: as if they truly exist and B: in a critical manner?
@@TheHorseOutside Nope, not by a long shot.
@TheHorseOutside Exactly. Even ignoring the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, it's fallacious to claim that the first century writings on Jesus hold the same historical weight as the Book of Mormon. While of course it is not impossible to invent a character of recent past, this is obviously not the same as texts that are written describing events hundrends or even thousands of years in the past. For the first to be false, you have to assume an at least somewhat elaborate fraud in which someone invents a character at a time when people who were still alive and living in the areas described in the narravtive could simply refute that the character ever existed. For the second to be true you have to assume either that divine revelation truely occured as in the case of the Book of Mormon, or that an unbroken and uncorrupted chain of oral history existed for hundreds of years as in the case of the narrative of the pentateuch. In other words applying Occam's razor to both senarions leads to opposite conclusions about, at the very least, the existence of the core elements of the narrative.
Most secular scholars affirm that Jesus was a historical figure. Paul is unquestionably a historical figure whose writings survived, and in those writings he describes meetings he had in Jerusalem with multiple prominent people who claim to have known the historical Jesus, including Jesus' brother James. While this is not hard proof that Jesus was historical, it does present a situation where to deny the historicity of Jesus means subscribing to a very elaborate fraud in which multiple conspiring people would have been attesting to having interacted with a made up figure in a time and place where they could have been refuted by their contemporaries. This is a starkly different senario to the Book of Morom or the first five books of the Old Testament.
There is no evidence that a divine Jesus Existed.
Can you name a contemporary writer or historian (other than the uncorroborated bible stories) who was an eyewitness to Jesus and mentions Jesus in his writing?
i think the chance he was based on a real person to be very low...
@@Pmrace1960
It is so low, that it is near zero! Why? Because what was supposed to be the most momentous event of the century does not have a single eyewitness.
Yet modern scholars don't debate this you do
@@Pmrace1960 Then you're in the minority and it sounds like denial at this point
@@AmazingStoryDewd
Nope. There is no evidence that the biblical Jesus ever existed. Can you name an eyewitness who mentions Jesus in his writing?
Did you not finish the sentence where the word "embarassment" was mentiond before posting this? Embarassment was mentioned not as proof that "they would have only included it if it REALLY happened", but as a heuristic tool for considering if it is worth dismissing a historical anecdote entirely or to analyze it further.
i thought (and hoped) that people would leave this sort of ahistoricity behind with the other angsty dismissals of reality, as i had done when i stopped being a teenager
if that were the case maybe i'd have gotten the video i wanted which is "how much can we know about the historical jesus"
We will definitely return to this topic later and create a video on scholarly methods for analyzing Jesus narratives, as well as how different approaches and backgrounds can result in radically different portraits of Jesus. For now, we felt the need to establish basic facts such as the existence of the man before we began speaking about areas where scholarly opinion is more divided.
We have to accept that we can not proof what is under 50 layers of mythology, but as it is a religiln no ond care about a human. They care only for the only of thousands of Artificial, mythological fegures they call Jesus.
7:37 "The position espoused by conservative Christians today that He was the divine Son of God." Not sure why 'conservative' was added here. Regardless of the particular theological/political orientation, this is fundamental Christian dogma that is proclaimed by the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Even non-Trinitarian traditions have various explanations of how Jesus is both God and the Son in some more metaphorical sense.
You're right and I regret the language used here - I was attempting to draw a distinction between the two extremes of biblical accuracy and in so doing it looked like I was attributing this view of Jesus to only conservative Christians. I understand that it is the dominant view and is shared by all orthodox traditions within Christianity.
@@tribunateSPQR I figured as much. Great video otherwise and keep putting out great content! Peace be with you.
Why not just show the evidence instead of dancing around it.
The question of myth or not is irrelevant until you state which Jesus figure you're talking about.
Possible that "a" Jesus, a preaching Jew, roamed the land of Galilee and gathered a following? Sure, why not.
Jesus was a common name in that area and there's plenty of attestation of travelling preachers/rabbi's.
However, "the" Jesus, the resurrected one, son of a god (or god himself?), to which many miraculous deeds, healings, etcetera are ascribed is more likely mythological than historical.
You can reject all the magical elements attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, as testified in the gospels, and still be left with a historical figure. THE Jesus of the gospels did, in fact, exist. He was baptized by John the Baptist, spoke in parables, thought he was the messiah, spoke of a coming kingdom, had 12 apostles, was betrayed, and was crucified.
@@ShunM-vr6mt All of this is based on what we state as "for so says the bible".
We only know from the gospel according to Mark that John the Baptist baptised him.
Everything this figure supposedly said (or even thought) comes from the gospels.
I can likewise strip Harry Potter from all his magical powers and dismiss Hogwarts and a magical world exist, and then state that what's left--a teenager living in England underneath a staircase--is historical. Yet we know that is not the case. So your methodology is at best unhelpful.
The broader point is that it may be possible that a Jewish preacher existed, that he upset Roman rule and the civitas tranquili and was subsequently executed.
Hower, "possible" doesn't get us to probable, let alone accepted as historical fact.
There is simply a general lack of verifiable (archeological) evidence and independent attestation that holds to the requirement of provenance.
Tacitus mentions a person who his followers call the christ was crucified. However, Tacitus doesn't mention his sources, something he usually does. So it is more likely that he got such "info" or "hearsay" from early christians. That does not rise to the standard of independent attestation. Historians don't work that way.
Conclusion: until real material evidence turns up, we'll never know, and just like a plethora of "historical" figures he'll remain historical speculation.
@@lizadowning4389Well uhhh..... not to be a jerk, but the video did tell us why the gospels could be used.
One of the key points emphasized is that historians developed a way to filter through the potential cap and bias and get to whatever meat a source can offer em. If you want to dismiss the gospels, it would help to at least challenge that first for good measure.
And with regards to historians not working like that, could I trouble you for an elaboration? Not trying to shoot you down, but if you wanna disprove the video, you got your work cut out for you. 😂😂😂 The video asserts that you gotta say no to other historical people we've accepted because of secondhand accounts if you say no to Jesus. That's a tough bar to clear. 😂😂😂😂
@@Six3rdy In large, most bible scholars are not trained historians, and it shows when they start arguing their case for so-called historical biblical events and personages. They are unfamiliar with the historical method, the requirement of using anchor points (material evidence, etcetera) when assessing ancient texts.
And yes, historians do not accept alot of material as historical fact on a plethora of "historical" personages, events, etcetera. We do not take for historical fact everything Julius Caesar writes in his Commentaries. However, we do have a plethora of material evidence (inscriptions, coinage, etcetera) that corroborates many elements of his life, his rule and place in ancient history.
So, what material evidence, archeology, ..., do you have for this Jesus personage other than copies of literature centuries after his claimed life?
"historians developed a way to filter through the potential cap and bias and get to whatever meat a source can offer em"
Which historians are you refering to, the bible scholars of the past two centuries? The self-proclaimed scholars that developed the "criteria of authenticity", which no serious historian uses?
If we would apply these criteria of "biblical scholarship" then most fabeled figures and events in history would be accepted as historical fact.
Or the bible scholars that "generally agree that the gospels were written between 70 and 140 CE" ... although there is no evidence in support of that?
The oldest fragment of a canonical gospel (P52) is dated to around 175 CE, no bigger than a bank card while the first more or less complete gospels appear late 3rd cen CE. So based on what evidence are these bible scholars (including Ehrman) uttering their academic creed of "Mark 70ties CE, Matthew ..."?
The author that wrote the gospel according to Luke was clearly--to any serious historian in antiquity anyways--writing stories, not history. He messes up dates and rulers right from the start (nativity story) although he introduces us with the message that he conducted a careful examination of events.
Judea and Samaria were not a Roman province until 6/7 CE so there was no governor (Quirinius) before that, hence no direct taxation from Rome, hence no need to order a census during the time when Herod acted as client ruler for the Romans. A census was only ordered when a governor was appointed. When Archelaus was deposed (6/7 CE) Quirinius was appointed because Rome ordered that Judea and Samaria (not Galilee) would become a Roman province and thus under the direct rule (and taxation) of the empire.
Jesus couldn't both be born under the rule of Herod (who died 4 BCE) and a pregnant Mary to travel to Bethlehem for the census ordered by Quirinius (6/7 CE). The "fine historian" Luke left an inexplicable 10 year gap.
Any historian reading the gospels notices right from the start he's not reading a historical account but a foundational story, aka myth.
I am not aware of a single _evidentiary fact_ that goes toward demonstrating the historicity of this Jesus.
Then I suggest you watch the video.
@tribunateSPQR I have. That doesn't change my statement. Are you aware of any _evidentiary facts_ that demonstrate the historicity of this Jesus? Yes or no.
I didn't think so.
@@Theo_Skeptomai 8:15
@kaianuvaldivia None of those sources can demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. If you would like to discuss these sources one at a time, let me know.
Your closing remarks were hard as frick 💯 Love your videos! Much respect!
I'm somewhere between agnostic, atheist, and anti-religion as a whole, and even I am humble enough to know history points to Jesus existing, just as it does for Muhammad and Siddhartha Gautama. What I am surprised by is how *sassy* this video got at the end. Hahaha.
I was blowing off a little steam there at the end as I found myself increasingly frustrated that I needed to establish something so basic. I'm still shocked people work themselves into knots to deny something that has literally know theological or metaphysical implications whatsoever
Except there is no history. That's why the Jesus story is told in church, not in history class.
@@Dylan-ty2iiOf course they did. So did Jesus Of Nazareth.
there are three historical accounts of Jesus of his miracles and his fame, from Greek Roman and Jewish Historians
True.
Thank you for being driven by fact and rationality. Massive respect for calling out the political activists presenting themselves as "scientifically" driven people.
NO, Jesus did NOT exist. Not even the so-called "historical Jesus", he did not exist.
didn't watch the video lol
Why didn't Jesus exist? Because a random guy on the RUclips comments dislike him
Oh wow. Let's pack it up, guys. It's over. All historians of antiquity, Second Temple Judaism, and 1st century Palestine are all wrong because some internet goober said otherwise.
Thoroughly enjoyable video, and a great defence of historical scholary methodology.
Many thanks!
While I find the Jesus mythicist position to be absurd, given the historical data, and by employing the historical method, this video title and some rhetoric within the video is not accurate. Historians do not "know" Jesus existed. Because unless the content creators are using "know" in a colloquial way and not as an absolute certainty, historians can be absolutely certain about historical figures from antiquity.
absurd...where is the evidence for jesus outside of the claim the bible....the gospels are certainly not evidence...
@Pmrace1960 The gospels are evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, despite your false assertion. They are a component of the evidence, along with the likely writings of Paul of Tarsus and the likely writings of Flavius Josephus. The gospels, canonical or otherwise, are not historically reliable texts overall, but they do correlate to the other data related to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. It is far more likely that he existed than not. The abductive reasoning that historians use in their methodology leads to that conclusion.
@Pmrace1960 Since my first reply to you got deleted for some ridiculous reason, I'll try this again. The gospels are evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, despite your false assertion. They are not historically reliable texts in many ways, but they are corroborative of the likely writings of Paul of Tarsus and the likely writings of Flavius Josephus, as they both attest to Jesus of Nazareth being a historical figure. Using the abductive reasoning of the historical method, it's completely reasonable to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth almost certainly existed.
I hold the same disdain for mythicists for their "war on history" I also hold that same disdain for those who believe in the miracles as well. Both Myth and Miracles are ahistorical.
Great Video btw!!!!!!
Sorry but starting from a naturalist presupposition is just that presupposition one should be open for both supernatural and natural explanations to events. That does not mean blind faith but if the best explanation is a super natural it's most likely true. Otherwise one assumes that the material world is the only reality that exist and that is just bad metaphysics.
@@wizardmadnes8035are you open to Hinduism or Islam or Shintoism? The issue with presupposing the supernatural is that there are hundreds of modern and thousands of ancient interpretations of the supernatural. There is only one nature, and it is something that we can observe and test everyday, regardless where we are are what we believe and the results of the tests are the same.
The "best explanation" is "most likely true" is terrible metaphysics because there is no metric for what is the "best explanation." If you asked a Roman why earthquakes happen he would say that it is because of Neptune duh, and that was the "best explanation" at the time, does that therefore mean it is true? Of course not. Through a naturalistic understanding of the world we stopped blaming gods or God for earthquakes and now understand tectonic plates.
What I presuppose is that evidence should come before belief. We only have evidence for the natural. So I can see why religious folk believe I and others "presuppose" a natural world only. There are those which this video rightly calls out who are ardently against any supernatural beliefs to the point where they deny reality which is a serious issue.
thank you!
Ah, bothsides.
@@wizardmadnes8035 Yes wizard of Oz otherwise he is a charlatan.
A Jesus that lacks all the notable characteristics of what Jesus is known for is not Jesus.
It is akin to calling the electromagnetic field the aether.
The skeptical arguments I’ve heard, like “the sources were written much later” or “they were written with bias” were used to argue that we shouldn’t take the bible to be a literally true account that has to be followed to the letter. I grew up in an evangelical home where we were taught every word was gospel and directly handed down to us as a mandate from God. I didn’t realise that a lot of people seriously think Jesus didn’t exist - he was just some guy, not the son of God, but he existed. What this video really has me thinking about is how accurate is the history of Caligula and so many other historical figures?? Are they as suspect in accuracy as I know the biblical narrative is, or even more so?? That is CRAZY
I have heard good mythesist arguments but I do come down on the side of there was probably some guy way back that got a bunch of things tacked on to him later. It does get to the point that you could say the final iteration barely resembles the original person to the point where you could say they were two different people, but the latter wouldn’t exist without the former.
This presentation contains a statement that is objectively false: "No scholars with relevant credentials today advance the claim that Jesus was a purely mythological figure." Richard Carrier has a PhD in Ancient History and has published a peer reviewed work ""On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" These are verifiable objective facts. The presenter certainly has the right to his opinions but to deny reality is unprofessional as well as delusional and thus negates the content of his presentation. He needs to deal with the actual arguments not straw men.
I'm aware of Carrier but was hesitant to apply the "scholar" label to him as he holds no university position and his work is treated with disdain by the field at large. It's very funny to describe his work as "peer reviewed" as if this lends credibility when all the reviews slam him for shoddy work that relies on wishful thinking more than evidence.
You may feel that I presented mythicism as a straw man but that's simply because there is no coherent way t present the theory. It breaks down immediately on contact with reality
How about Raphael Lataster, PhD, University of Sydney, adjunct professor? He is the author of "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus" also peer reviewed but I am sure you will find something wrong with him too. I have entitled your theory of peer review, "Peer Review Nullification." @@tribunateSPQR
@@tribunateSPQR *his work is treated with disdain by the field at large* His book was well-received by critics, so I think you have a little self--delusion going on there. And since when is a university position telling of someone's scholarly abilities? If he can make enough money on his own works, why would he need to work for a university when he can be an independent scholar?
It is simply not true that "all the reviews slam him for shoddy work". @@tribunateSPQR
Maybe read Carrier's book on the topic with an open mind, rather than parrot hearsay opinions from Christians who apply motivated reasoning to reject Carrier's arguments.
BTW, there have been scholarly books written by professors in Germany putting forward the Jesus mythicist view since the 1800s (and very recently, too). The fact that you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist.
There's no scholarly consensus amongst historians that a human Jesous existed. Scholars who think he existed almost all simply assume that he existed; they haven't looked into it deeply. They assume that the Gospels are, at their core, biographies. Specialists know that's not the case, and that Paul's Epistles long predate the first Gospel, upon which all the other Gospels were based; and Paul's Epistles, taken together with the Ascension of Isaiah document, strongly suggest that Paul's Christos Jesous was a mythical salvific archangel figure, not a human being.
Read Carrier's book, read a couple of Robert M. Price's books, read RG Price's book, read and consider the implications of Prof. Markus Vincent's scholarly views on when the first Gospel arose and what it contained (Marcion, 130s CE), and then reconsider your overcommitment to the idea that a historical Jesus existed.
Hi, can you please name the Art at 2:16?
Roman Senators and Legates by Jean Lemaire, 1645
I have come to the conclusion that Socrates was a group of philosophers that Plato idolized and came to be known as the mythical figure Socrates. Many philosophers were forced to drink poison at the time and had various myths and teachings about them. Franz Meusebach wrote extensively on this.
Your view on history is refreshing, to many use it to create a context of moral or racial expectations. Great work 👍
The gospels are all copies of each other. Not sure how you can claim that we can consider them any sort of 'sources'.
"There are no contradictions in the gospels" is a very weird stance for a mythicist to take.
But even if we throw out the gospels entirely we still have the letters of Paul (earliest coming 15~ years after Jesus' death) and other NT documents that affirm his historicity. However we don't even need THESE works as there are passages on Jesus from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the younger among other non-Christian sources.
@@tribunateSPQR *There are no contradictions in the gospels" is a very weird stance for a mythicist to take* I don't know any mythicist who takes this stance.
*we still have the letters of Paul...that affirm his historicity* Paul never met nor knew a living Jesus. His Jesus was strictly visionary. No other book of the bible is contemporary to the time of Jesus, none say they are eyewitness accounts.
Tacitus and Josephus weren't even born when Jesus supposedly lived, so they're not contemporary sources either. Tacitus was writing nearly 100 years after the supposed life of Jesus. He was only writing what Christians of his time believed.
Josephus' TF mention of Jesus is now widely considered to be a forgery, a later interpolation of Christians. It's only how much of it is a forgery that's in question. Josephus was also writing in the late 1st century.
@@druidriley3163 You said the gospels are all copies of each other, indicating you don't feel there are sufficient differences between them. In reality though the different perspective and editorial choices of each author is widely recognized, even though it is commonly understood that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source.
Again, the distance between the first authors and Jesus is rather small when we consider the limits of ancient historiography. Plutarch never met Caesar and wrote 100+ years after his death but his (flawed) biography is still viewed as a valuable source. You're applying a standard to Jesus that can't be applied universally because this is something you WANT to be true, you're a fundamentalist and no different from a dogmatic creationist.
If you want to be this skeptical about all ancient history then be my guest - you'll be laughed at and mocked by professional historians and academics (much like Carrier is) but at least you will be consistent.
@@tribunateSPQR *You said the gospels are all copies of each other* I don't say this, scholars do. Scholars have known for a long time that Matthew and Luke are copies of the book of Mark. 60% of Mark's verses are in Luke, 90% of Mark's verses are in Matthew. Word for word. There is no question they are copies.
*In reality though the different perspective and editorial choices of each author is widely recognized* It is widely recognized that each author had their own agenda. But each was writing ONE gospel. Their own. They were not writing in conjunction with another gospel. The author of Luke even states he is writing the gospel that should be preeminent over the others.
*Again, the distance between the first authors and Jesus is rather small* 40 years is not "small'. It's 2 generations. Average life expectancy at the time was 60 years. By the time the book of Mark was written (anywhere from 71-73 ce) anyone who was a peer of a historical Jesus would have been at the end of their life or already dead. *Plutarch never met Caesar and wrote 100+ years after his death but his (flawed) biography is still viewed as a valuable source* Because we have corroborating sources other than Plutarch for Julius Caesar's life. We do not take Plutarch alone at his word.
*If you want to be this skeptical about all ancient history* Everyone should be viewing ancient history with skepticism. Unless we have contemporary corroborating documents, events, laws, artwork, coinage that support people or events in the past, no historian or scholar will consider them "historical".
They are not all copies. John's Gospel is very different from synopti onesc. And yes - 40 years is 'small' time period, compared to what we have to other historical figures. And they are not alone - Romans within 1st century viewed Jesus as real person who influences new groups who were Christians. You should ask yourself - why would anyone invent Jesus? Ancient people loved give as their authority famous figures - why wouldn't they choose some faous prophet as their source of influence but come after virtually unknown man? Yes, we should be skeptic about ancient history, but we should also apply Ockham'z razor - if someone is treated by ancient sources as historical figure, especially, in less than 100 years after thheir end, then chances are better than not such figure was real.
Got any physical evidence for the physical claim of a physical Jesus?
In other words this video proves nothing. It is riddled with circular logic, blatant dismissal of anything that questions his existence as a real person and 'trust the experts' lunacy, even while admitting they don't know anything more than anyone else themselves, even admitting they 'infer' (aka make up without actual evidence) things
You directly contradict your own logic multiple times, dismissing anything you don't agree with from supposed sources while also claiming it wouldn't matter if the majority or all of the things being said were made up for whatever reason, completely ignoring the fact that would invalidate them as sources for anything in itself. The existence of contradictory statements about him, combined with a completely non existent amount of actual physical evidence is in itself a huge indication that he did not exist
Your 'sources' are nonsense. Nothing they say can be taken at face value or as evidence of anything. You're conveniently leaving out the fact that the majority of the people writing anything about him also claim he's literally the son of a god who magically ascended to a mythical heaven. In other words they're talking bs and any statements they make about him are based on bs. The christian writers have a reason to lie an to bs about things they were told by others as well as to believe the lies of others told to them, the romans had every reason to lie and none of them had even met him or seen any of the events first hand they were writing about. They were talking based on things other people had told them. as for famous historians and what they had to say about him, I suggest looking into their histories yourself. They frequently talked nonsense and flat out made things up on a fairly regular basis. Something such people have a long history of doing
Not to mention you're being incredibly self righteous, pedantic and ignorant
you are so pathetic do you even know what tacitus said about Jesus?
Followers of Jesus have so many outlandish claims in terms of miracles and morality, that believable evidence for his existence is important.
I have yet to see any credible proof of his existence from a non-christian contemporary source. If he is proven to exist, i would happily accept it, after all billions of other people have managed to exist.
This video strawmans the position of people like me, whilst giving NO acceptable evidence.
There are many valid non-christian historical sources for Jesus, I encourage you to do a google search on this as you will quickly see that Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus and even the Talmud all testify to the historicity of a man named Jesus. There are no historically rigorous reasons for rejecting any of these sources and they are accepted by scholars of every stripe.
In addition, Christian sources cannot be rejected in their entirety simply because of miraculous elements or an authorial agenda. Doing so requires the adoption of a standard that would prevent us from using the vast bulk of ancient literature for any reconstruction of the past. As mentioned, there is no obligation to become a doctrinal Christian simply because one acknowledges that a Jesus existed it's a hill that simply isn't worth dying on
"It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography." - This was said by a christian theologian/historian (ironically, perhaps) John Crossan; and I guess demonstrates what could be a "proto-mythicist" position (the distrust of the sources and of those that work them, specifically, since it's not unreasonable to think some could use this work to justify their own theological beliefs).
The major issue, then, which is I think the major grievance of this video, is an "overcorrection" (for lack of a better term) to the other side, going on a complete dismissal of everything, based purely on beliefs.
Going back on Crossan, it's ironic that he became controversal amongst christians for wanting to study a historical Jesus using Historical methods and sources, which could deviate from christian canon or setting aside a lot of the supernatural stuff, and that this same position would also become controversial amonst others for the opposite reason, that he would be "delving too much into the supernatural" for merely attempting.
Also, just an aside, one could use this video as a good addendum/example for an explanation/critique of Ranke's Historicism.
It's sad that you actually used a scholar's quotes to quasi-defend a fringe conspiracy theory. Just assume a conspiracy is going on against academia.
14:05-14:20 HAHAHHA based historian moment.
I try not to editorialize too much but this is a position I can state unequivocally doesn't merit any respect - its fundamentally incoherent and an assault on the practice of history itself.
There's plenty we don't know about the ancient past and I will hold to views that are in the minority on some issues myself - but the historicity of Jesus is as open and shut as anything can be from this era.
Bearded Jesus didn’t even appear until 350CE so Christians worship a “false idol” against 10 commandments 😂
No serious scholar uses the "criteria" anymore in the quest for the historical Jesus.
Keep up with scholarship instead of uttering nonsense.
So i used to have a rather agnostic view of historical jesus but something that fueled it was that when pointing towards textual evidence i got a vague "josephus" & the tacitus quote which, idk if its the translation or something but it came off
As "nero did things to christians; the christians believe X" which read as proof of christians"
Getting the actual citations changes the perspective radically
Josephus was a turncoat.
The Alexander biography cites its sources, whereas the gospels do not. Hardly an equal comparison
Hardly a point worth mentioning. That means Alexander did not exist.
@@gregoryfilin8040 No, it means that the comparison in this video (between the date the gospels were written and the time gap between Alexander and the biography) is not a useful one and should be disregarded.
How did you interpret my point to mean that Alexander did not exist?
@@MatthewCaunsfield Logical extrapolation of your standards outwards towards all historical figures. I'm merely pushing your idea to its logical conclusion and end goal.
@@gregoryfilin8040 Not how the example was used in this video.
That's the trouble when strawman arguments are used, and this was far from the only one
There was a historical basis of course. But ..... There is where the fun begins 🙂
I think that everything past acknowledging his existence and death by crucifixion is up for debate and there is plenty of evidence to support a wide range of interpretations but if someone can't even admit to those tow well established facts then they aren't really able to contribute to the conversation.
😂 we have more & better evidence of Pontius Pilate than Jesus …are u just lying or ignorant?
Pilate's Life
As a historical figure, we have evidence of contemporary literature, coins minted in his name, and an inscription from the base of what may have included his statue from the city of Caesarea. Our literary sources for Pilate include the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria
Well chucking in an real figure like Mr. P is a way of trying to validate Mr. J.C Forrest Gump was with JFK in the film.
Know? Historians and theologians may believe, conjecture, extrapolate, maintain, consider, conciliate, concede, accept, replicate, calculate, promote, insist and think Jesus existed. But know? That would require, by logical parity, physical evidence for their physical claim.
They have no physical evidence. Hence, the best we can all say is MAYBE.
Yes, we can sure without a reasonable doubt that he walked the Earth and did and said some things. Imagine thinking that a lack of physical evidence makes the mythicist case look even remotely credible.
@@thefancasthub6862 What is your physical evidence for your physical claim for a physical Jesus?
@@robertlight5227You're starting with a false premise here. Why exactly does physical proof become the end all be all? Why are you so blatantly ignorant of how ancient history works that you think someone's physical body is the only way to prove they existed?
This is like me claiming that because I don't have physical proof of a physical Buddha or a physical Nero, that means they're fictional.
@@thefancasthub6862 You have no premise. If you cant prove your JC was at least a man then what are we to think of your greater claim he was a deity? Where is your confirmation? This why people are leaving organized religion.
All you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of contradictory text from lost manuscripts for unknown authors in Greek.
Very poorly researched if he believes no academics assert mythicism and have published peer reviewed books on it - and he’s condescending towards them.
He doesn't say they don't exist; he says they are dogmatic and use a different burden of proof for Jesus than you'd use for any other historical figure.
Im still trying to find where Jesus said for people to worship him
He didn't need to. The Jews understood that he claimed to be God. That's why they wanted to kill him.
He doesn't need to say "hey I am God, worship me", him just indicating that he is God was enough for people during his own time and for believers today to worship him. In Abrahamic religions only God can forgive sins, Jesus often did say "your sins are forgiven" which people during his own time understood as him claiming to be God. Jesus raising people from the dead would also have been interpreted by the people of his time as him being God and acting like God - having power over life and death itself. Jesus also saying things like "I am the way, the truth and the life" and "no one comes to the Father except through me" is also a great example of him claiming to be God. So, he doesn't explicitly need to exclaim to everyone around him "I AM GOD WORSHIP ME." 👍
He said he is God incarnate, so worshipping is implied
@@pao5567 *He said he is God incarnate* Which would have gotten him stoned to death for blasphemy in ancient Jewish society, yet he wasn't. Sounds like it's a made up story.
@@druidriley3163 mythicists in abstinense crisis when they haven't moved the goalpost for 5 minutes (your girlfriend is a made up story)
This video starts off by claiming the public doesn't understand the methods of professional historians. But we do. I personally know a couple of professional historians - university academics. They have a strong inclination to tell a good story and get facts wrong and omit facts contrary to their story. Look at RUclipsr Mark Felton - a university history teacher specialisiing in World War 2. He gets a lot of things wrong, especially when he talks about the war in the pacific. But he tells a good story.
I fully believe that you are familiar with the methods and methodology of academic historians as are most of the viewers of this video - but we're a small subset of the population that are passionate about history and though I wish this commitment was more broadly shared I don't think the general public has a solid grasp on what constitutes a valid historical approach.
Even many of the comments on this video reject the overwhelming consensus of scholarship on this issue which shows that there is a tendency to reject historical evidence and expertise if it aligns with pre-existing beliefs.
Except Mark Felton isn't peer reviewed. This whole topic has a scholarly consensus. Just seems to me you have an anti intellectualism so strong you'd of voted for the Khmer Rouge
@@ManiacMayhem7256 If you read my post carefully, you would have seen that I said professional historians tend to concoct a good story and are loose with the facts. This is contrary to what the presenter of this video implied.
I gave Mark Felton as an example of a professional historian who tells a good story and not the facts.
The topic of this video does not have scholarly consensus anyway.
The leading academics of the Christain Faith all describe it as just that - a faith. That is, it's something that cannot be proven - you have to take it on faith. If that works for you, and it does for many, fine.
Incidentally, Google Scholar shows Mark Felton has published in peer reviewed journals.
@@keithammleter3824
Your post wasn't formulated carefully, it's just anti intellectual drivel the likes of which you'd of seen from the Khmer Rouge
And your assertion is a lie meant to poison the well. If we use actual historians, such as Richard J. Evans, Adam Tooze, Sheila Fitzpatrick, J Arch Getty and Stephen Kotkin, we see they don't fit the anti intellectual narrative you push. They sacrifice narrative history for analytical fact. Your cherrypicking a pop historian doesn't really change that, especially when Felton is heavily criticized by other historians. It's funny how you guys on the left are like "Trust the experts!" Until the experts disagree with you 🤣, then you try to discredit the entire field. Thankfully we can see the facts for ourselves rather than your propaganda.
There is a scholarly consensus on this debate. A single Google search and a peek into peer reviewed academic journals reveals this. Even Wikipedia, usually reserved in its language due to centrism, admits most scholars and historians believe Jesus was real. You're being dishonest. A Google search alone disproves your notion, let alone the numerous works on the matter
Cool, name me the peer review work from Felton.
@@keithammleter3824
You cherry picked a pop historian who is already heavily criticized by historians and tried to discredit the entire field through him. It's just anti intellectualism via poisoning the well. Unlike you, I can cite numerous historians who sacrifice narrative pop history for analytical fact. J. Arch Getty, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Robert Gellately, Stephen Kotkin, Richard J. Evans, Adam Tooze, and more. Cite me a specific example for each one of them distorting facts for a "good story". I'll wait.
RHITORIC NONSENSE. Alexandros had a bunch of scientists with him. They wrote their own books based on their special subjects of study, botanologists, historians, doctors, astrologists, philosophers, engineers, architects, landscaping engineers.....Many wrote books on his campaign, among them his close general, Ptolemaios Lagos, the later founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty, called Soter ( Σωτήρ ), the Saviour, like the pseudojesus Christ was named after. From the lost works on Alexandros, the later authors based their own works, like Arrianos whom he is taught in the world schoolrooms today throughout the world. No historian wrote any historical thesis on JC, except a casual mention of his name. Using Alexandros' case on his authentic existence along with the fabled Jesus Christ, in order to establish JC's existence, you commit dishonesty and manipulation of historical evidence which belong to historical figures instead. You complicate the simple and evident with a rhetoric nonsense.
*rhetorical nonsense
Or as a danish history Magazine printed recently : Historians agree that he was jewish religious leader executed by the romans around the year 30 .
His existence and death by crucifixion are so well established that it's absurd to argue otherwise.
@@tribunateSPQR excatly Sir that is very true .
*or as a danish history Magazine printed recently* What Danish magazine was that? I could easily counter with an entire issue of National Geographic devoted to searching for the historicity of Jesus and admitting they failed to find any evidence. *Historians agree that he was jewish religious leader executed by the romans around the year 30* I'd like to know where they got this date from. Because not even the bible says when he was executed. 😎
@@druidriley3163 Not even Bible says he was executed... I think you didn't read Bible then.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *Not even Bible says he was executed" I think you didn't read Bible then* I think you didn't read my post. Go back and read my post again because I said "Because not even the bible says _when_ he was executed."
A very well presented video , but I'm always a little worried about 'schoolboys marking their own homework'.
its awful...he claims bundles of evidence....there is none...
Wow, this video is so full of inaccuracies and just plain wrong information. Definitely sounds like it’s made by someone trying to prove Jesus. It’s definitely not a scholastic account.
To me, the most convincing evidence of the historical Jesus is the psychological realism of the Gospels. Jesus seems to me to have been a very charismatic preacher with a strong passive aggressive streak, deeply empathetic but with outbursts of impatience. Moreover, the people he interacts with are deeply flawed - Peter, for example, who just gets everything wrong and at the end can't even own up to being his friend. Or Pontius Pilate, a middle-aged bureaucrat who asks, almost in passing, "what is truth?", as if to slightly betray a flash of some long-dead curiosity he must have had as a young man. The Gospels are rare in ancient literature, in that they give a very broken, contradictory, and painfully real view of ordinary people. So either the Gospels were fabricated by a literary genius who could anticipate the realism of the 19th century, or they were to at least some extent the story of real people.
No. The evidence for his existence is because of mainly non-Christian talking about him in the 1st century within the lifetime of his early followers and relatives (James the Just as an example). Not because of any psychological reasoning. That's why virtually everyone in the field acknowledges his historical existence.
@thefancasthub6862 Wow, good manners! Anyway, the major references to Jesus are Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, and arguably the Talmud. Pliny describes Christians, but not Jesus - he is dealing with an administrative problem of them not performing the sacrifices to Caesar. Josephus' reference is strongly suspected to be corrupt, as his works were preserved exclusively by Christians and not Jews. Tacitus mentions a riot by the followers of someone named "Christus", but some texts render this as "Chrestus", which was a common Greek name. Finally, the Talmud had started to be composed over 100 years after Jesus' death, and mention someone they call "Yeshua bar Joseph", which is about as specific as "Joseph son of John".
@@thefancasthub6862 Thank you, comic book guy. The references to Jesus outside the Gospels and Paul are Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, and the Talmud, and there are problems with all four. Josephus is likely to be corrupt, as he was copied exclusively by Christians and not Jews. Pliny doesn't mention Jesus, just Christians who do not perform the annual sacrifices to Caesar. Tacitus mentions a riot of the followers of "Christus", although some manuscripts read "Chrestus", a common Greek name. Finally, the Talmud mentions Jesus several centuries after the appearance of Christianity, describing a charismatic eccentric who was the son of an adulterer - a very typical attitude after the destruction of the Second Temple, when Jewish Christianity largely disappeared and both Jews and Christians saw themselves in opposition to one another.
While I think Jesus was probably a real figure, I have a problem with using the flawed nature of the people therein as evidence. It seems to me the highlighting of those flaws serves a narrative purpose - to highlight the perfection of Jesus and how lost others are without him. Additionally, Pilate waving off Jesus casually is meant to show that the truth didn't matter to him and the people who wanted Jesus gone. Having them not be this way would only serve to muddy the point the new testament's trying to make IMO.
@bennettbullock9690 There are two references to Jesus by Josephus. One of them is barely a partial interpolation and still overall authentic. And the other is about his brother and is completely authentic.
Tacitus' use of Chrestus is not a common Greek word and is indeed a specific reference to Christ. It's not a reference to any other type of person but that.
Pilny also references Jesus when he says that "they sing a hymm to Christ". So, it is Jesus that he references.
Duuuude, I really liked this one. I think I was holding onto some early-aughts nu-atheism edgelord baggage... "It is a war on the discipline of history itself" indeed.
Thank you, very glad you enjoyed it!
Even if you don’t believe in Jesus as a prophet and son of God, you have to admit that it is more likely than not he existed. It is far more believable that a religion was started by the man all the sources talk about than an invention of the mind.
A Roman invention indeed!
Well, if it wasn't for Constantine and his council of Nicaea, Christianity would have fizzled out. People forget about the infighting among the pre Christians, what was gospel what was heresy, the Arians, whether Jesus was God, the weird Trinity thing.
@@Ponto-zv9vf they could just easily be saying mythras is my lord and saviour...
Biblical words and names are Farsi/Persian, some are listed below:
The word "God" is coming from "Good" and good comes from Farsi word " خوب - Khoob " and khoob comes from " خاک او - khaake-uo " and khaake-uo comes from " خاک - khaak " which means "Soil" or "Earth". The word "Khaak" is a natural and organic word/language/sound which is coming from the sound our mouth makes when ejecting/spitting out the dirt that has entered our mouth, it was used by mothers to teach children what to eat (enter their mouth) and whatnot.
Deus and Dios are Farsi words "Darius" or "Cyrus [the Great"].
Hashem is " آهن شمش - aahan-shemsh " means "Iron Ingot" from Iran/Iron.
Allah is " آهن آلات - aahan-aalat " means "Iron Tools / Metal Tools".
Sallallahou Alayhe Wasallam, Arabic " صلي الله عليه وسلم " is " سرب و آهن و حلبی و مس زرد رنگ - sorbo-ahano-halabi-va-mese-zard-rang " which means "Lead, iron, tin and yellow copper".
Allah o akbar is " آهنآلات خاک کن - aahan-alate-khak-kan " means "Iron tools to dig the ground" like Picks and Shovels.
Mosses " مس ساز or مس دزد - mes-saz OR mes-dozd " means "coppersmith or copper thief"
Jew "جا - jaa" = Room / Home / Shed
Jesus "جا ساز - jaa-saaz" = Home builder
Christ "کار است, کار دست - kaar-ast/kare-dast" = The work we do using our hands to build a home, determines the ownership of that house
Genocide "جا نساز - jaa-na-saaz" = Do not build home
Genesis "جا نسازید - jaa-na-saazeed" = Do not build house (purell for genocide)
Gabrael "این جا بروید - jaa-beraveed" = Leave this home, executor of eviction
Palestine "پا و دستان - paa-va-dastan" = Legs and hands, [construction] workers
Disciple "دست پرکار or دست و پا دار - dast-o-paadar" = Having [skilled] hands for work Joseph "جا زاد - jaa-zaad" = The male who was born in that home Jouda "جا دار - jaa-daar" = One with home, not homeless
John "جای من - jaa-ye-man" = My home [in the future] Judea "جادارها - jaa-daarha" = Those who have house (opposite of homeless)
Moshe "مال من میشه - maale-man-mysheh" = It will be mine Judaism "جا دزدیست - jaa-dozdist" = Home/land thief
Magi "مانده جا - mandeh-jaa" = The man who knows the owner of the home and land
Maryam "مادرم - maadaram" = My mother, being a mother
Mary "مادری - maadary" = Motherhood, a girl who is expected to be a mother (roots for marriage, madam, Ms and Mrs)
Jahad "جا بخواه - jaa-bekhah" = Demand for having a home (not an enslaved on someone else's land)
Salvation "بساز و بشین - besaz-o-beneshin" = To live in your own built house and living in there
Babylon "برابرن - bara-baran" = Equals, people who shared the land equally amongst themselves
Malachi "مالکان - malekan" = Landlords, owners of the houses.
Pagan " پاره گان - paregan" = Those girls who lost their virginity
Sodom [and] Gomorrah " سردمه گرمم کن - sardameh-garmam-kon" = I am cold, warm me up, It was used by prostitutes
At that time there were no postal addresses, people used to put their name or their statue to claim the occupation of the home, like "Hassan's Home" so every name was followed by the word " jaa", later the tribe of yahoodies claimed the word "jaa" as their names to claim all the properties. Noah also picked the name "river" so they can also claim ownership of all the water bodies on land. Jesus also invented the Nail and Cross Joint to be used to build homes.
Trinity is a Farsi word " سه گانگی - se-ghanegy " which means "[concept of] three [owners]".
Father is the builder and the original owner of the house [there was no divorce and the mothers were automatically co owners with fathers),
Sons will inherit the property to protect the mother and other siblings when the father is too old or is dead. Daughters were getting married and co-owned their husband's property.
The Holy is " خالی - khali '' which means when the property is vacant and the word Spirit is " از بین رفت - az-bain-raft " which means building that is in ruins or was destroyed, in this state the Church will take ownership of the property and use it for single women, children and elders with no support.
In the Concept of Trinity, God is the landlord.
The Trinity was the base of the entire Christian and Western Civilization.
The Council of Nicaea formalized Trinity as the official rule of the land and Constantin centralized and unified registering the properties (issuing deeds) and recording their owners' names, to that date registering and recording was done by local real estate agents and escrow companies of the time dominated by jews who were abusing and trafficking and abusing women and children who needed food and home.
Virgin Mary means that Mary the mother of Jesus was a Virgin when married to Joseph, her virginity entitled her and Joseph to the ownership of the land and ability to pass the home to their son Jesus.
The word Mashiach is a Farsi word " مال تو میشه - male-to-myshe " which means "It [Jerusalem] will be yours", if someone can prove that jews are the owner of Jerusalem then your war will be over. Mashiach is the same Arabic word as " ماشاالله " and Muslim use it often, it means that by working hard and doing a good job you will own your nice property.
David is " دربان - darban " means "doorman/security guard/door keeper".
[Mashiach] Ben David is " بی دربان - bee-darban " which means "no need for a doorman".
Messiah is " مصالح - massaleh " = [construction] material, later it became " مسیر یاب - masser-yaab " which means path/direction/way Finder.
Nazareth " نوزادگاه - nozadgah " which means Newborn nursery, Labor and delivery hospital and birth certificate registration [for legit children of married couples]
Synagogue is " زن زادن جا - zan-zadan-ja " means where women can deliver baby, it was for delivering fatherless children and the children of rape victims or performing abortion. Delivered children were kept and were turned into slave soldiers, workers and the girls into sex slaves. Boys were tagged as slaved by tattoos and the girls by ear piercing.
Ark of Covenant are Farsi words " آهنکن گاو نر - aahankan-gave-nar '' which means "Iron for Bull Cow" or "Plowshare". The wings are the accessories required to mount the plow. This was the shared/rental plow for the community and it was designed by Persians who extracted Iron from Iron ore for the first time, the name Iran is the same " آهن کار/ آهن دار - aahan-kar " means Black Smith" or "Those who have Iron".
This was very interesting to read, thank you for taking the time to post.
Is it your assertion that a lot of the biblical tales become much more mundane when viewed in ancient languages of the region?
What first hand accounts do we have of Jesus's life?
The gospels
@@justokproductions222the gospels where not first hand acounts. they where written over a hundred years after.
@@blank_3768
Yet are based on first hand accounts from his life passed on. The accounts from ancient historians are also relatively close to the time period even if after death, way too short a time for an entire man to be fabricated which is a phenomenon that takes centuries to occur. Occams razor dictates Jesus existed but was just a man with no actual magic
@@ManiacMayhem7256 while jesus certainly did exist. there’s no evidence the gospels are based off of first hand events. It’s far more likely they where created from folk knowledge of jesus.
None.
To Jews at that time Messiahs aren't supposed to die a terrible death and are supposed to liberate them from oppression with divine will.
So yes the 12 Apostles are telling the truth.
This is a pretty bad video. Instead of blathering about the untenability of the mythicist position on a general basis, you should go through the actual evidence there is that he was a historical person and also explain the methodology used to sift out the true elements. You need reliable primary sources, all else is irrelevant. There are a few independent sources of Jesus's existence.
That's the problem with just going through the actual evidence. It's the assumptions of what should be considered that matter. In ancient history, if we ignore all but "reliable primary sources", we lose nearly everything except bits of archeological evidence. Especially if we rule out sources that are likely to be biased - like for example any contemporary writing about an emperor or a student like Plato writing about a teacher.
Primary sources are great when they exist, but antiquity is so poorly documented that very often even for great rulers, the only real information comes from histories or biographies written generations later.
It's Surprising that The Historians like Josephus, Pliny and other who are from the first century, Has Not written much on Jesus's life, his miraculous birth, Crucifixion and So called Resurrection.. except Few lines
It’s funny that you think we can separate fact from myth involving things that happened 2000 years ago when we can’t even do that today.
So by your logic Rome never existed and medieval times never happened.
interesting and informative as always
Thanks again!
14:14 took me out 😂😂😂 Great vid
Thanks!
As Robert Pirce has argued, the problem with Jesus is that once you eliminate the fantastical and obviously false stories surrounding him we are left wondering how he could ever have come down to us at all. Other "historical" figures are far more everyday men than Jesus. This problem can possibly be solved only if we identify with one of Josephus' messianic pretenders. The Egyptian is perhaps the best condidate. Otherwise there is no everyday Jesus distinct from the mythology.
If Jesus existed, you have to feel for him, a man with human parents and a wife named Mary who went around the country preaching who has been made into something he wouldn't have wanted, a messiah, a god, someone to worship like an idol. That is my opinion.
There may have been a rabbi-Jesus, but he and bible-Jesus have nothing but a name in common. Bible-Jesus is totally mythological. There was no virgin birth of Jesus. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus (though there is evidence that others were crucified). There is no extra-biblical evidence for any miracle performed by Jesus. There was no resurrection of Jesus. Rabbi-Jesus, on the other hand, may have had some followers, but he was no Messiah. Josephus wasn't even born when the crucifixion supposedly took place, and his writing about Jesus came decades later and is thought by experts to have been forged. Furthermore, even if Josephus' writings about Jesus were not forged, they do not and cannot attest to his divinity which is a fabrication.
You're responding to claims we didn't make - we don't argue here that the historical method backs any miraculous claims (all we can know is that Christians believed these claims). The similarities between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith have been debated for centuries and likely will for centuries more.
As for evidence of his crucifixion, this is one of the things that we can absolutely know for certain about him as it is relayed in both Christian sources (which are historically valid for these limited purposes) and non-Christian works like those of Tacitus and Josephus. Certain aspects of Josephus are of course later interpolations but scholars have identified a historical core as legitimate to the original work. The fact that he was writing decades later is irrelevant because as mentioned we also accept works like Plutarch as primary sources though his biographies were written centuries after some of his subjects.
@@tribunateSPQR No, I'm not. I'm making an assertion, not a response to a claim. There was no bible-Jesus. That Jesus did not exist. There may have been a rabbi-Jesus. That is not a response to any claim made in your video. There was no crucifixion of Jesus. That claim was made by Christians and may have been repeated by historians as a Christian doctrine. Biblical sources are NOT historically accurate for these limited purposes. Biblical sources occasionally coincide with historical sources but are not historical themselves. The books of the bible are religious in nature, not historical in nature. They are not interchangeable except in the case of the history of religion. Therefore, there may be some historical accounts that mention the claims or dogma of a religious group without affirming the events actually took place. That is the case with the crucifixion. No historian affirmed that Jesus was crucified but that Christians say he was.
The author of the Gospel According to Saint John definitely witnessed the crucifixion of someone beaten & scourged as is described as happening to Christ. The proof is his description of the centurion thrusting his lance into Christ’s RIGHT side and seeing WATER AND BLOOD flow out. Something only an eyewitness could know, medical science tells us. Stabbing crucified victims was not standard practice. Doctors say that watery fluid would have built up & surrounded the heart in the pericardium sac in someone receiving all the wounds Christ did.
No one could make up that medical fact, sorry.
Fictional character created by the Roman Empire!
Did you put this out on Easter on purpose? Seems to have become quite the controversy in the comments
us court controversy? ...never
Okay so I actually disagree with this analysis for several reasons 1. People writing about the existence of Christians and what they believe about Jesus after the fact doesn’t confirm he existed especially when at least one of those sources is in fact embellished 2. The problem with saying that any part of the Jesus narrative is true is extremely problematic because the issue is there is no extrapolating the historical Jesus from the Jesus presented in the New Testament like there is no way possible Jesus was mostly miraculous with some mundane aspects to his life like if you take out all the miraculous and just leave the realistic what is actually left? 3. There are zero not one eye witness to Jesus’s life or his ministry or what he taught zero not one. The literal only reliable source in the New Testament is Paul because he is the only one writing letters about Jesus in the first person and even he isn’t an eye witness he knew about Jesus through a “vision” he had on the road to Damascus and of course he knew Peter. The problem with saying that we know for sure that Jesus was absolutely 100% real is that I don’t think taking everything into account we have enough information on Jesus to verify his historicity with absolute certainty like it would be like if someone in the future found a Sherlock Holmes book and just assumed Sherlock Holmes definitely existed because we have people who talk about Sherlock Holmes in the past and we have books written about him it doesn’t make sense
I seriously doubt that all historians now automatically accept the historicity of Jesus as accepted, undeniable fact. Doubtless there are some who do not. After all, the modern system of recording history is at variance with the practice in (e.g.) Roman times, when unless facts were recorded by those who were there at the time (and who knew and understood the circumstances), most of "history" was written by people who were merely repeating what they had read elsewhere, or had been told. In other words, what they offered as "fact" was simply hearsay, and was therefore unreliable. I fail to be convinced by your very careful semantic constructions, persuasive though they may be. I grant that you may have a case, but as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out, and must remain so until time travel becomes genuinely possible. After all, so what? Convinced Christians believe that Jesus existed, and don't need any proof. As for me, the question is completely irrelevant.
The question is: why would anyone invent contemporary man to spread theological message? Why not invent stories about some other famous figure, another martyr? There was this rebel King Antigone, who met his end in same way as Jesus. Why not talk about him? Why doubt existnece of someone in first place if he appears in chronicles in the same century he was supposedly alive?
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *Why not invent stories about some other famous figure, another martyr* How do we know they didn't? We have no original gospels, would we even know them if we had them? Paul's letters were written a generation later and he complains about the "different Jesus'" other people are teaching. And remember, to Paul, Jesus would have been Yeshua -- the John Smith of 1st century Judea.
John E. Remsburg, in his classic book *"The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence"* (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:
Josephus, Juvenal, Lucanus, Philo-Judæus, Martial, Epictetus, Seneca, Persius, Hermogones Silius Italicus, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Statius, Arrian, Pliny the Younger, Ptolemy, Petronius, Tacitus Appian, Dion Pruseus, Justus of Tiberius, Phlegon, Paterculus, Apollonius, Phædrus, Suetonius, Quintilian, Valerius Maximus, Pausanias, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Florus Lucius, Columella, Pomponius Mela, Lucian, Valerius Flaccus, Appion of Alexandria,, Quintius Curtius, Damis, Theon of Smyrna, Aulus Gellius, Favorinus
According to Remsburg, “Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Neither do any of these authors mention the Disciples or Apostles further embarrassment for apologists trying to explain the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.
Now to cover the few mentions that Christian apologists have managed to dredge up over the period of their control of all written sources.
*Josephus*
The Testimonium Flavianum (TF) is not merely “not entirely authentic” it is in fact entirely not authentic. The TF appears in the course of one of three stories told by Josephus about Pontius Pilate. In all three stories (with the notable exception of the TF) Josephus heaps opprobrium on Pilate, portraying him as a self-motivated, and thus solely-to-blame, callous agitator against the Jews and desecrator of the holiest temple to the god of the Jews, only to suddenly paint him as a weak-minded puppet of the Jewish authorities for a few lines that could come directly from the Gospel according to Luke, only to just as inexplicably and instantly revert to describing a Praefect so enamoured of his own authority that he was replaced by Caligula for being too despotic.
the account of Pilate’s theft of temple money to fund an aqueduct is (with the exception of the TF) filled with specific details-the rioters shouting insults, the Roman soldiers going among the crowd in Jewish dress, the order to the demonstrators to disperse, the violence of the soldiers, and the bloody suppression of the riot. At each point Josephus reports not only what the various groups did, but why they did it, and what the causes and effects of their actions were. This account, like the other Pontius Pilate accounts, has a narrative structure. The aqueduct story sans TF is an account in which a situation is established and the characters interact, and there is a resolution. The account has a beginning, a middle, and an end. The other two Pilate episodes (the legionary standards episode and the Samaritan uprising) have the same structure, that is. The careful crafting of sequences of events and “cause and effect” is an essential part of Josephus’s skill as a historian. By contrast the Testimonium has no such plot. From its position in Josephus’s “Antiquities of the Jews” it does not qualify as a narrative at all. The Testimonium could not be understood except by someone who already knew, understood, and above all *believed* the gospel accounts of Jesus and the context of early Christianity, and more importantly it breaks into an already established account of Pilate’s anti-Jewish actions by portraying him as an easily intimidated puppet of the Sanhedrin It does not explain any of the specifically Jewish terms used such as “Messiah” or “Christ” which would be unknown to the target audience Josephus was aiming his “Antiquities of the Jews” to. The Testimonium gains its intelligibility not through its detailed reporting of novel events but by virtue of being a “repetition of the familiar” that is to say familiarity to third century Christian readers, as opposed to first century Romans. It is not just that the Testimonium is exposes its Christian evangelism by its adherence to the Gospels, it is that without knowing (and most likely also believing) the Gospels the passage is meaningless.
Likewise with the “Who is called Christ” phrase, there is no explanation of why somebody would call the brother of James “Oiled” which is what the word “Christos” means. To a first century Roman, wrestlers were anointed in oil before starting a contest. If you read the entire story in which the line appears certain facts become apparent. First the timeframe is set in that it occurred between the death of Fesus but before the appointment of Albinus, putting the events before AD62 but no earlier than AD61. In the account James (brother of Jesus) was stoned to death at the orders of the Sanhedrin under the leadership of the Sadducee high priest Ananus. As a consequence a deputation of concerned citizens intercepted Albinus as he was travelling to Jerusalem to assume office to make their complaint which Albinus upheld and ordered king Herod Agrippa to remove Ananus from office. As a result Agrippa subsequently appointed Jesus as high Priest. During the three paragraph narrative of the event, Josephus uses the term “Saduccee” and promptly refers back to a previous use of the word while also explaining to the reader what a “Saduccee” was. Josephus also goes into detail about the elder Ananus, his five sons, and their proud family tradition of being elevated to office as high priest. Josephus devotes three entire paragraphs containing plenty of information while reporting a relatively unimportant dispute in the Sanhedrin and yet you would have people believe that he would limit himself to a single paragraph of gushing adoration towards one of many claimants to messianic status, especially considering how dismissive his three paragraphs dedicated to Athronges the shepherd were.
Compare that account of how James died with the account by Hegessippus in which James’ death came about from a spontaneous incident in which he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple. Like all good Christian martyrs he survived and rather than either begging for his life or just running away, he prayed for divine forgiveness for those attacking him before being clubbed to death by a Fuller (Laundryman). Hegesippus puts that death as taking place immediately before the siege of Jerusalem which took place in AD70. Since both James (Jacob) and Jesus (Jeshua) were very common names in that place and at that time it is more likely that the two sets of brothers were different people than that there was one set of time-travelling brothers. For example, I know of two pairs of brothers named Peter and Christopher, neither of them being the Hitchens brothers.
*Tacitus*
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a prominent Roman historian and politician who rose through the political ranks to become Proconsul of Asia. As such he would have never got the title of Pontius Pilate wrong any more than Winston Churchill, also a historian and politician would have described David Lloyd George as being the President of the United Kingdom at the beginning of the “Great War”. Most of what is known about Tacitus comes from his lengthy correspondences with his friend the governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, who I will mention in his own segment should one become necessary.
The “Tacitus” quote and its description of the persecution of Christians, using them as novelty streetlighting contradicts all other sources of information including “Acts of the Apostles” which shows that by the time of Nero’s reign Christians were free to worship openly as long as they “rendered unto Caesar” The thread that runs through “Acts” is of Jewish persecution of Christians and Roman punishment of Jews for their treatment of Christians, as well as the edict of Claudius issued in AD41, and that certainly accords with Roman policies on religion and religious tolerance before Constantine’s day.
The Edict of Caudius issued in around AD48 expresses Jewish rights, but includes an instruction for the Jews to respect similar rights for followers of other faiths _”Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims: . . .Therefore it is right that also the Jews, who are in all the world under us, shall maintain their ancestral customs without hindrance and to them I now also command to use this my kindness rather reasonably and not to despise the religious rites of the other nations, but to observe their own laws.”_ and the letter to the Jews living in Alexandria goes into greater detail _”Wherefore, once again I conjure you that, on the one hand, the Alexandrians show themselves forbearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and dishonour none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of the Deified Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have sanctioned; and on the other hand, I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented), and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions. Otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of which is a general plague infecting the whole world. If, desisting from these courses, you consent to live with mutual forbearance and kindliness, I on my side will exercise a solicitude of very long standing for the city, as one which is bound to us by traditional friendship.”_
The “Tacitus” entry correctly identifies the fire of Rome as a flashpoint (pun not intended) of resentment, but it was not resentment of “Chrestians” but rather of the revolting Jews (Jewish Revolt AD64-AD70) and since the Christians had pivoted away from Judaism they were not looked on with the suspicion that fell on the Jews in Rome as a consequence of the Jewish revolt. In fact many Christians were recruited from among the Gentile (Pagan) populations of the first century Roman empire. It also runs counter to the letter from Pliny the younger to Trajan. As a person living in Nero’s Rome as a child Pliny the younger would have had definite memories of Nero’s novelty streetlamps had such actually existed.
At best, if authentic, “Tacitus” would only demonstrate the *existence* of Christians, not the accuracy of their claims or beliefs.
There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again discusses any potential Neronian persecution of Christians in any other of his books that form the Annals, yet there are several paragraphs covering Jewish arrogance towards non-Jews and Tacitus takes exception to the Jews carrying out live animal sacrifices of animals that are sacred to the gods of their closest neighbours, for example in “Histories 5.4” Tacitus states _”In order to secure the allegiance of his people in the future, Moses prescribed for them a novel religion quite different from those of the rest of mankind. Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral. In the innermost part of the Temple, they consecrated an image of the animal which had delivered them from their wandering and thirst, choosing a ram as beast of sacrifice to demonstrate, so it seems, their contempt for Hammon. The bull is also offered up, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis.”_
It is notable that no other authors, Pagan, Jewish, or even Christian know anything of the use of Christians to light the darkness either, indeed absolutely no ancient Christian apologists made even the slightest use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus.
Like the Testimonium Flavianum, the “Tacitus” entry was unknown to Origen in AD248, and it was also unknown to Eusebius, the author of the Testimonium Flavianum. In fact Origen admitted in AD248 in his defence of Christianity titled “Contra Celsum” that there was no mention of Jesus outside of the gospels, and as late as the ninth century Photius the Ecumenical Bishop of Constantinople admitted that Josephus had never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and also made no mention of the persecution of Christians under Nero.
Other Christians who made absolutely no reference to Tacitus include Marcion, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irnaeus, Polycrates, Tertullian Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Augustine of Hippo. All of those Christian apologists were desperate to find non-biblical sources demonstrating at the very least the existence of Jesus, and Eusebius had expressed his willingness to lie and fabricate “evidence” yet nobody knew of that supposed entry in Annals 15.44 before it was first referenced in the 14th century when Johannes de Spire first published his translation of the Annals of Tacitus in Venice. Robert Taylor (author of “Diegesis”, published in 1834) believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.
*Suetonius*
I will start by noting that Christian apologists such as J. P. Holding list Suetonius as one of the lesser value references compared to the forgeries of Tacitus and Josephus Here is the first of the two relevant quotes: _“As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of _*_Chrestus,_*_ he expelled them from Rome.”_ The text of this quote has been altered to change the name “Chrestus” which is a Greek name meaning “Good” to read “Christos” a Greek word meaning “Anointed” that wasn’t a name and was not applied to Jesus by Roman authorities until Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire in the early fourth century. The author also speaks of “Chrestus” in the present tense, that he was physically present and inciting riots at the time Claudius chose to take action. Bearing in mind that in AD41 Claudius made the following edict _” Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power, proclaims ... Therefore it is right that also the Jews, who are in all the world under us, shall maintain their ancestral customs without hindrance and to them I now also command to use this my kindness rather reasonably and not to despise the religious rites of the other nations, but to observe their own laws.“_ That edict granted the Jewish people the freedom to exercise their own religion but imposed on them a duty to respect the religions of other nations under the Roman empire. If the Jews were acting against the Christians in the manner described in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (Itself a dubious claim) then it is entirely within reason that they would be punished so expelling troublesome Jews and their living agitator named “Good” seems an eminently practical and lenient solution to a problem of civil disturbance that goes against the “Render unto Caesar” attitudes the gospels ascribe to Jeshua bin Maryam. This indicates that far from being evidence of the existence of Jesus, it is at best possible evidence of early Christians who were not *persecuted* by Rome but rather protected *by* Rome from Jewish persecution.
The second quote from Suetonius also does not mention Jesus, but refers to Christians supposedly being persecuted under Nero, and yet makes no mention of the Jews who were by that time in open revolt against the Roman empire over a matter arising from the excessive demands made by the Jews on behalf of their religion. The Jews, who had requested Augustus Caesar annex their country rather than be ruled by their own Archelaus were now telling their rulers that symbols of Roman rule such as Roman coinage or Roman imperial insignia on Roman soldiers or their uniforms and equipment were not acceptable to the Jews and must be removed forthwith. I personally suspect a spot of Christian revisionism of the “second” reference, some Christian copyist “modifying” the criticism of the Zealots excessive religious demands against Rome in breach of the edict of Claudius to portray it as an attack on the Christians
Compare
_”During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city”_ with “Punishment was inflicted on the *Zealots* a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”.
The Romans under Nero would have had no objection to religious zeal from a religion whose leader had supposedly preached _” Pay your taxes, in full and on time”_ there is nothing “mischievous about that but Roman authorities would have strenuously objected to members of a Jewish movement of the first century AD that fought against Roman rule in Palestinia as being incompatible with their strict monotheism and the ultimate power of יְהֹוָה.
*Pliny the Younger*
Gaius Plinius Caecilius Cilo also known as Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus AD61-AD113) was a Roman lawyer and magistrate, eventually rising to the rank of Consul and becoming governor of Bithynia. As a child Pliny alternated between living at his uncles home in Como, and his home in Rome (this becomes important later) He lived with his uncle (Pliny the Elder) and was eventually adopted by him as a result of his own father having died when Pliny was a small child. Following an uprising in AD68, Nero committed suicide and after a short civil war Vespasian emerged as the emperor after a year in which four people briefly became emperor..Vespasian was a close friend of Pliny the Elder and his accession to Imperial purple made both Plinies very powerful men.
When Pliny the younger was eventually appointed as Governor of Bithynia and almost as soon as he was installed in office accusations were levelled against the minority Christians, that they were criminals who refused to offer sacrifices to the local gods, that they were cannibalistic and had incestuous relationships. Since Rome had policies of religious tolerance failing to offer sacrifices to the majority gods was not a crime as long as the rights of the worshippers of those other gods were respected, so it is entirely possible that the charges were brought purely in an attempt to cause Pliny to make a bad decision. Pliny wrote to his friend and sponsor Trajan for any information on what crimes Christians may be guilty of. Bearing in mind that he had lived in Rome during Nero’s term as emperor it would be fair to say that Pliny would have remembered Nero’s novelty streetlamps *had they actually existed* and the fact that Pliny had the need to write asking what crimes the Christians had committed is evidence that the claims inserted into Tacitus were a later “Torture porn” example of Christians painting themselves as past victims in order to “justify” their own atrocities against Pagans once Christianity started to become powerful.
The letter to Trajan is very solid evidence of the existence of the Christians of Bithynia, to the extent that I would be more than happy to admit that it is proof of the existence of the Christians of Bithynia and it also lists the reported *beliefs* of the Christians of Bithynia. What it does not do is offer any evidence to corroborate the accuracy of those beliefs any more than an article about the religious beliefs of former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is evidence that the lost tribes of Israel moved to pre-Columbian North America.
I had never heard of Remsburg or his work so I googled him and it looks like this book is from 1909 and that Remsburg himself has no qualifications in the field of ancient history. The video was about why all modern historians reject the standard imposed by mythicists as inconsistent with historical inquiry.
Sharing outdated work doesn’t refute the thesis here, just shines light on how few are willing to make the claim in 2024
practically zero evidence outside of the gospels for an "historical" Jesus.
Rofl
@@exterminans He's quite correct. Only mentions of Jesus outside the New Testament are decades later, and likely just relaying second hand information from Christians.
I assume you're using "gospels" as a stand-in for the entire New Testament here as he Jesus appears in these canonical documents as well - but even if that was all we had and we acknowledge the NT's limitations, it would still be valid to infer at minimum his existence and certain facts about his life. Fortunately we have other sources (as I mentioned) and these confirm the broad details.
It isn't evidence on par with Caesar of course but it is evidence in keeping with what we would expect for such a figure.
@@tribunateSPQR None of the canonical and non-canonical documents are contemporary to the time of Jesus' supposed lifetime. We call that sort of writing "hearsay".
in the old days you didnt need proof, you followed the teachings and if done correctly you could have experience with the heavens yourself, thats all the proof you need. the teachings were not written down, the problem with writing them down is anyone can get the writings and if in the wrong hands use them for destruction, such as conquest, persecution, burning people alive, and torture inquisitions. which is exactly what happened.
Could not get past tthe first five minutes. The ad hominem opening was bad enough; but., when you followed it up with strawman argumentation, I lost it. Have you bothered to 4ead any of the academic literature questioning Jesus historicity?
Very well reasoned
Religion or belief's are a part oh human civilization. It's an anser to questions no one can answer and a way to keep or help keep people on the right path in life. It gives people hope and helps them cope with death... it does a lot of good things for the needy in most cases. So is Jesus real? I wouldn't know but if it makes people deal better with thier lives to believe he is than i feel that is absolutely fine. During hard times or desperate times in my life i have preyed for strength or guidance and it helped me feel better and helped me to deal with the situations.
I'm glad you said this. I hear people dismiss King Arthur all the time like this. Even though he's mentioned in king lists as the King of Glamorgan Wales...lists (the Brutes of England) that still survive to this day!
PhD Scholars that believe the Gospel Jesus never existed; Thomas L. Brodie, (His 2012 book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Thomas L. Thompson, Robert M Price, Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, George Albert Wells, (1975 book, Did Jesus Exist?, Earl Doherty, John M. Allegro, Alvar Ellegård, Archibald Robertson, Albert Schweitzer, On the Historicity of Jesus: by Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, Gerd Lüdemann, his book Paul, the founder of Christianity, Philip R. Davies, R. Joseph Hoffmann, Dan Barker, his book From Preacher to Atheist, John E. Remsburg, his book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, H.H. Mangasarian, his book, "The Truth about Jesus, is he a Myth? among many others.
Yes a historical Jesus might have existed but did the miracle birth Jesus who rose again after 3 days of being dead exist? No.
Jesus existed in the form of 5 or 6 guys:
1) Jesus ben Ananias (preacher in Jerusalem from 62 to 69 CE)
2) Jesus ben Damneus (High Priest in 62 CE)
3) Jesus ben Sapphias (leader of fishermen and beggars in Galillee in 66/67 CE)
4) Jesus ben Pantera (Talmud and Celsus)
5) The Egyptian (in the time of Feliz, around 55 CE)
6) Jesus, the Nazorean (time of Pilate, around 30 CE)
Apparently, Jesus, the Nazorean, was the chosen avatar by Christians. In the Nicean/Constantinoplan creed they made compulsory to believe that Jesus was crucified by Pilate
If you’re sa theses Christian doctrines came out of Nicaea then you would have to ignore ancient Christian writings around the middle first century and the late second century
Which would be @@kaianuvaldivia
There are evidence of the gospels saying that Christ was crucified hundreds of years before the council of Nicaea.
@@xdaantihero Theophilus of Antioch, justin martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Tertullian, and etc. you can also watch a past live stream with Jay Dyer and Michael Jones where they go over apostolic fathers and their quotes about the Trinity.
@@kaianuvaldivia Every single last one of them existed after Jesus was crucified. They wasn't witnesses to him or his miracles, or his apostles. We don't know who wrote those gospels but we do know Paul's writings is the earliest so he's technically your father.
THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT JESUS LIVED , DIED, AND ROSE TO EVER LASTING LIFE.
there’s no evidence jesus rose from the dead. There is how ever evidence that there was a subsection of jews at the time who believed the end times where coming and that all the dead would rise from the graves.
I agree!