287. Jesus Christ: The Mystery
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 дек 2022
- *The Rest Is History Live Tour April 2023*:Tom and Dominic are going on tour in April 2023 and performing in London, Edinburgh, and Salford! Buy your tickets here:robomagiclive.com/the-rest-is...
Jesus Christ: The Mystery In today's episode, Tom and Dominic discuss the most mysterious historical figure of all, Jesus Christ.
They take a deep look at who he was, his teachings, and whether he actually existed.
To get the second episode in this mini-series right now, join The Rest Is History Club (www.restishistorypod.com). You'll also get ad-free listening to the full archive, weekly bonus episodes, live streamed shows and access to an exclusive chatroom community.
Twitter: @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook
Fantastic episode for both Christians and Atheists alike, big fan of this one!
Fascinating podcast, gents!
Thank you very much... ☝️😎
I enjoyed that. Very balanced and informative.
Excellent
Oh boy !
love this channel, great content and womderfully prepared. I've also just been told that Tom is my neighbour and I dont meet many people who share my obsession with these kinds of questions so that's good. Great stuff guys, keep it up!
I love how, after about a minute, you say the name 'Jesus Christ' as if the plumber had just rung to say he wouldn't be coming to fix your leak 'til tomorrow.
He was you prod ✝️🙏♾️
Maravilloso. Acá en Atacama los escucho con gran placer
Thank you for this episode. The ‘brother of Christ’ reference in Josephus is also disputed as chief priests were apparently also called Christ (as they were anointed) and the passage which contains it is all about a succession crisis concerning high priests. I thought the gospel of Mark is usually dated in the 70s when the temple was destroyed as it is very focussed on temple references. The earliest Christian writings are the epistles of Paul and they are mainly strangely uninterested in the life of Jesus.
John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, James the Just and Paul of Tarsus ... are radical figures. The work of the Holy Spirit works thru many people ... these people have short degrees of separation. What we do get eventually out of all the Anointing going on before and later, are three State organizations, one in Armenia, one in Ethiopia and one scattered thru the Roman Empire. All of which are radical events in history, compared to the previous 1000 years. It is reasonable to think that what develops into Islam came out of disparate Nestorian groups (the non-State Churches of the Near East onward thru Persia to India and China).
It's not strange that Paul doesn't delve into Jesus's biography. He was writing to people who were presumably already aware and convinced of the basic story. If I address a letter to, say, the organizer of basketball tournament, it isn't necessary for my letter to recount the historical development of basketball.
History is relevant because it isn't past, but alive in the present. It is wrong to think history is discontinuity. Modernity and Enlightenment are taught as discontinuity as revolution. But human nature isn't greatly different thru the ages. In Eternity all time is one.
I'm half way through episode 1 and i have a question.... is there any mention of Brian?
Please correct me if I misunderstand, but according to Tom Holland, Rome wasn't even collecting taxes from Galilee? Then all of the films, books and TV shows we've seen where tax collectors (like Matthew supposedly was before following Jesus) are wrong? Or is it just that the tax collectors in Galilee (including Capernaum, where Jesus spent most of his time) were collecting for Herod Antipas, and not for Caesar? If this is true, then the TV series "The Chosen" (which supposedly uses historical consultants to get the period right) is totally wrong, and people have had the wrong idea for decades if not centuries. Would appreciate if someone would clear this up for me. Thanks.
He was a northerner. From Yorkshire lol. Brilliant.
One of the major sects mentioned by Josephus and Pliny the Elder were the Essenes. But there is no mention of them in the gospels or Paul's letters. Why is this?
Because he didn't care to mention it nothing more nothing less
Big topic, and for once I have extensive knowledge. Let's see ...
Oh dear... Not much 'history' in the first 20 minutes.
Still trying to find out why and when the crucifix became the symbol of Christianity and when did a Jewish sect become a separate religion.
I was at 'his' grave in Srinigar. I'm a pagan but I believe that's him in Kashmir
Paul's epistles, written by a known author, include limited bio details on Jesus. These should come before the gospels. Secondly, Acts is a continuation of Luke, but if they author knew of the temple destruction then for me it strains credibility that it would not have been used as a polemical point.
Of the sources and historicity...no mention of Luke, John Mark, John, Levi (Matthew)? Written between 15 and 25 years after the life of Yeshua, by men who lived with Him (John, Levi)...?
Didn't they put the ark of the covenant into the pax Romana and then later moved it to St Peter's in Vatican city where it was later 'lost'?
You must be thinking of something else. It was lost 1000’s of years before Saint Peters was built.
@@jkb2819 no, i dont think so, it came to Rome in the rule of Titus or Dominican I forget which, it's engraved on the arch of Titus. I know it goes into the pax Romana, it's engraved somewhere there too. Then at some stage and I'm guessing after 450ad it's moved to Saint Peter's made of wood, then that burns down and it's lost in apostrophes. So the Roman's only had it for perhaps 250 years. I'm counting the Vatican as a separate country from the Roman state. I'm fairly sure of my facts, I've often wondered if the ark of the covenant isn't in the nave of st Peter's, nice gold altar they have there.
@@jkb2819 there's also the story of the sang graal which is what you get from later versions of the apostles texts, those less accurate, and there is the story of the coptic Africans but I don't believe that either.
Where are you getting this from if you don’t mind me asking? The standard account is the Ark goes missing during the Babylonian invasion, by the time Pompeii takes the temple in the 1st century BC he goes past the curtain and finds a stone with nothing on it. Never heard anything about it being brought back by Trajan or whoever.
@@jkb2819 One of the points of the curtain ripping after Jesus's death was to show the under-priests that the Ark was no longer there. Before then only the high priest could go in and see the Most Holy.
Let's talk about Saul the pharisee who became Paul the apostle and wrote about the resurrection a mere 20 years after it took place. "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received - that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day. (1 Cor. 15).
"according to the Scriptures". As this great podcast mentions often, things were said and done to conform with prophecy. Not denigrating Paul as a source, but he would certainly not be overlooking a chance to back up his story with a little history.
@@pattismithurs9023 Yes it's a great podcast, but what I hoped they would discuss is this question - What caused this jewish leader and pharisee to suddenly become a faithful follower of the dead messiah he had so fervently opposed? I believe the best explanation is what the New Testament gives witness to and the early church bears out, namely, that he saw the risen Lord Jesus Christ face to face on the road to Damascus.
Yes, the whole thing was Paul's invention, who never met Jesus, but saw himself authoritative enough to put those who had known Him straight on what He was all about. You don't have to read much from Paul to get a sense of how ambitious and just crazy he was
@@maddi62 two words - eyewitness testimony. read 1 cor. 15 - and also the book "jesus and the eyewitnesses" by richard bauckham.
@@faithpals Eye witness testimony sucks at the best of times. You don't even have that in 1 cor 15, just a crazy man making a lot of claims about what other people have seen. And himself, of course. Nothing to corroborate any of it
If you read Paul's letters carefully you will find that Jesus is Paul's alter ego, nothing more and nothing less. If you compare what is written in Paul's letters to the Corinthians with the gospel of Matthew you will find a strange correspondence. It's almost as if someone has put into the mouth of Jesus the teachings and words of Paul!
I don't know guys this seems like trying to prove Spider-Man was real because a thousand years in the future someone finds a Spider-Man comic book and knows from history New York existed.
Is it really though? Any contemporary historians of New York out there casually talking about Peter Parker as if he was an actual person?
@@jkb2819 as I said 1,000 years in the future, not currently. The larger the span of time the more Superstition and speculation become factors. An understanding of the history of Jerusalem being in a time of turmoil, isn't substantiation that that turmoil comes from Jesus. That's just speculation. The first hand accounts of Jesus Through The Gospel is it retroactive attempt for substantiation. Taking the Bible as a history book is a logistical fallacy. It may talk of real places, but those places doesn't substantiate the supernatural things the Bible talks about. That is to say in a thousand years when we find a Spider-Man comic book and can substantiate that New York was real, but it isn't proof that Spider-Man was a deity of New York.
@@toptester301 But nobody is claiming that Jesus existed because Judea and Galilee existed. They think he existed because a load of people who were contemporaries of his or near contemporaries say he did. Which is as good as evidence as you get in history (minus finding the corpse, which obviously would be controversial in this case!)
I think you are confusing this with a separate argument around Gospel authorship. If the writers are reflecting Jewish knowledge and concerns of the time, this is just generally interesting for understanding why Jesus is portrayed the way he is and why he is revered, irrespective of whether he existed, or was the son of God or whatever. Of course apologists also find it interesting because it casts doubt on the idea that Jesus was invented or exaggerated by people far away in time or by distance. However the existence of Jesus as a basic historical fact does not depend exclusively or even primarily on the Gospel narrative being set in a real life location.
If people believe in Spider Man at some point, then it is a religion, not a comic book, for as long as people believe in it literally (not as mere poetry). People today believe in Marxism and Karl Marx, who promises believers a Heaven on Earth. Deity or not, that is a religion, and will continue on till the last day a literal believer can be found. In GB, Jedi is a legal religion.
Not really, they used Alexander the Great as an example. Any sources talking about him are written long after his life, yet nobody questions his existence.
Isn't the difference that people /nations "believed" in Allah because they knew that they'd have their heads chopped off if they didn't, as opposed to Christians believing in Christ, despite knowing that they would would be executed for doing so? A considerable difference!
Not a page of the New Testament would have been written if Christ did not rise from the dead.
I don't know man, that seems like a stretch. Thousand of books are written daily about people who never existed.
II Kings 17: 24-41 explains the development of the Samaritans after the invasion of the north by Assyria.
Wow! You mean there was someone to ring in Biblical times if you were thinking of topping yourself?
The Gospels are unlikely to be written after AD 70, because the Temple is everywhere assumed to be standing. See John A. T. Robinson on the dating of the New Testament.
Richard Bauckham, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses"
I don't believe it.
Let's be honest: this story is only interesting if you find it unique. Otherwise it sounds like a rip off or a con job of fabulists. Do better.
It's an error to say Jesus is in the Qur'an, Tom. A character called Isa, who is purportedly a Muslim prophet is in the Qur'an - he is the Muslim Jesus, not the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, which is the only Holy Book where he can be found.
Jesus christ is as much a mystery as count dracula is. We should be skeptical of the claims pertaining to both.
There is a big difference. There are sources mentioning Jesus outside of these that believed in him as a God.
@@marxussy there is no difference. Both are characters from a book with magic powers.
@@adriangeh6414 yeah, that is true(in a way), but I just told you the difference which you completely ignored.
@@marxussy yes because its ridiculous to believe something just because others believe it. There are people who believe vampires are real, but that doesn't make it true.
@@adriangeh6414 I'm not talking about believing in Jesus' divine nature, I'm talking about his existence.
Hey Tom, you have a tendency when reading passages from historical sources, to read them entirely too quickly to be discernable, which tends to communicate to listeners that the source is not to be believed or bothered with, which I doubt is your intention. Slow down, son! You stutter and babble quite a lot as it is, which I chalk up to your passion about the topic you are discussing. But, it doesn't serve you or listeners well to rush on top of your natural speech impediments. Indeed, sometimes I am forced to change the playback speed setting just to make out what is being said. That is asking quite a lot of your audience, I'm sure you would agree.
The Sanhedrin had 72 members and was the ruling council of the Jews.
Have you heard about the theory that the Romans made up Jesus and Julius Ceasar was the man they based Jesus after
Ana-nias (?) Ana-nye-as.
Jesus and eleven of the disciples were from Galilee. Judas was from Judea.
2:58 nope!
Not both faith, one is faith the other is evidence based.
The strength or vehemence of a belief does not make it faith.
Some atheists so strongly hold their belief that god isn’t real that they too refuse to acknowledge any counter argument.
But that too is not faith, it’s ignorance.
Not both faith
It's interesting how different the definition of faith is in the Bible from what people assume faith is. Hebrews 11:1 (if you want to know where this is coming from) calls faith the evident demonstration (or convincing evidence) of realities not seen. Byington's translation uses "putting unseen things to the test", American Standard version "a conviction of things not seen." KJ says"the evidence of things not seen" The actual Greek word has a meaning similar to "title deed." as in you have something in hand which is reasonable proof of something you can't see yet.
Blind faith is credulity which is quite a bit different. Someone saying "You've just got to believe" (without knowledge) does not know the book they think they are espousing.
To give an example, imagine walking along a beach in the southeast US. The weather is perfectly sunny, not a cloud in the sky and the breeze is light. A small boy is running along the beach yelling out random stuff and at one point he says "A hurricane is coming" and then he continues on his way. There's really no reason for believing that a storm is coming. The witness is unreliable and there's no evidence given.
You go inside and turn on the news and the weatherman is on. What he says you place greater faith in because what he says is backed up by both the position that he is in, his record of accurate reporting and the evidence that he places with reports of weather and wind patterns. If he were to say that a hurricane was coming in a few days you would take action now.
That verse and the Bible as a whole is telling you to read, research and examine evidence thoughtfully.
@@johnbenson4672 A living faith doesn't depend on old books, it depends on Holy Spirit in living people.
@@williambranch4283 Where do you get "old books"?
@@johnbenson4672 Old people ;-) ... but their living wisdom is best. Ask before they pass beyond the veil. Per Fahrenheit 451, each life is an open book, and we are the author.
@@johnbenson4672 I wasn’t quoting the bibles definition.
I was referring to the definition in English, and in practice.
Faith is the preservation of belief in spite of a lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary.
That’s what it means, no matter what some primitive desert peasant described it as two Millenia ago…
IF that isn’t just a lie too