How Historians Know Jesus Existed
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2024
- Have you ever wondered if Jesus was a real person or just a myth? If so you may be surprised to see what scholars actually say about Jesus of Nazareth.
This video unveils the evidence that convinces historians of Jesus' existence, from the Gospels to archaeological finds. But is the evidence for Jesus as strong as the evidence for Roman emperors like Augustus? Prepare to be surprised!
This video is for anyone curious about the historical Jesus, whether you're a devout Christian, a history enthusiast, or simply have questions. We'll explore the facts without getting bogged down in theology.
00:00 History and the human condition
02:26 Jesus: History vs. Myth
03:41 Why the Gospels are valid sources
07:58 Jesus outside the New Testament
09:15 Do we have the right sources for Jesus?
14:04 The war on history
Support us on Amazon: bit.ly/3Ivg9ZX
🔔 Subscribe here: / @tribunatespqr
Related Content:
Why the Gospels are Anti-Roman: • The Anti-Romanism of t...
Roman Crucifixion: • Crucifixion: The Proce...
Keywords: Jesus, Christianity, History, Bible, Religion, Historical Figure, Ancient History, Archaeology, Gospels, Roman Empire, Augustus, Historical Evidence
#Jesus #History #Religion #Christianity #BibleStudy #AncientHistory #Documentaries #Facts #easter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branding and design by Kate Hillstead: katehillstead.com
Host sculpture portraits by Daisydewdles: daisydewdles
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.
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.
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.
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!
Happy Easter!
Named after the Indo European dawn goddess, yes happy Eostre.
Wasn't so happy for jesus
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.
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.
Good video fellas. Kept the focus in exactly the right place.
much appreciated, thank you!
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.
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
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.
as hitchens says " why go all those lengths and lie about roman census to have Jesus born in Bethleham but be from Nazareth if it was a complete fiction ? Why couldn't they invent a rabbi who was born in Nazareth? This lie shows us that Jesus did exist but he didn't met the criteria to be a Nazarene."
This is Christopher Hitchens not me.
Its his words, not mine.
And I’ve argued this point exactly with people that thought Hitchens was a mythicist….to no avail.
The problem with Hitchens argument is that he's only talking about 2 gospels. The other two gospels are just as highly venerated and didn't see the importance of placing Jesus' birth in Bethlehem at all.
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.
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 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
No scholars hold that opinion, but plenty of Redditors do
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!
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.
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.
Thank you for being driven by fact and rationality. Massive respect for calling out the political activists presenting themselves as "scientifically" driven people.
True "objectivity" is impossible and we are best suited to investigate the truth when we are aware of our own biases
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.
Thoroughly enjoyable video, and a great defence of historical scholary methodology.
Many thanks!
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.
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 CZcamsr 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.
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.
Did you put this out on Easter on purpose? Seems to have become quite the controversy in the comments
us court controversy? ...never
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
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!
Well argued - shame about the trolls
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".
Great analysis! 👌🏻Love confidence and directness! ❤🔥❤🔥❤🔥I recently watched video when some academic was talking about Jesus in historical context - the amount of initial backlash that video got and mean comments like "Will they gonna talk about Santa Claus next time" were truly bizzare to me. I was aware of mythicism theory, but I would never guess how much it is prevalent and how much people are blinded by anti-religious attitude to ignore all historical context. 🤦🏻♂
Thank you! There are of course many different historical interpretations of Jesus and scholars have constructed a wide range of portraits depending on how they weigh certain aspects of the evidence. From a historical perspective, all of this is valid.
But mythicism is fringe and really just relegated to internet nobodies because to throw out the astounding evidence for his existence is so absurd that no scholar would ever make that assertion. It's a shame that loudmouths on the internet are so far behind scholarship that they're ignorant of just how isolated they are
Mythcism is not fringe. Most all secular scholars are mythicists, they just don't call themselves that. e.g. they say that Jesus _probably_ existed, but they mean a man, not the Jesus of the bible, which then moots the entire point if a man named Yeshua (the John Smith of 1st century Judea) lived but didn't do anything the bible says he did. Or they say the bible Jesus is a composite character made up of several different wandering messiahs at the time. IOW, not a real person. IOW, a myth.
@@druidriley3163 It absolutely IS fringe. 'but they mean a man, not the Jesus of the bible, which then moots the entire point if a man named Yeshua (the John Smith of 1st century Judea) lived but didn't do anything the bible says he did. ' - NONE is saying that Jesus didn't do ANYTHING what Bible says. However we cannot confirm how much Jesus did so the only certain fact remains his death by cross.
'Yeshua (the John Smith of 1st century Judea) ' - No - not 'just Yeshua'. Yeshua of Nazareth, son of Mary, stepson of Jospeh, maternal half-brother (or cousin) to James, Jospeh, Simon, Judah and two girls. If Jesus was 'composite character', I wonder why most sources give him exact same family members.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *NONE is saying that Jesus didn't do ANYTHING what Bible says. However we cannot confirm how much Jesus did so the only certain fact remains his death by cross* But they can't prove it. And not all scholars say this. Some say Jesus of the bible was a composite figure, created from several wanna-be messiahs running around at the time. Which means 1) Jesus of the bible didn't exist and 2) there were a bunch of Yeshuas running around in 1st century Judea. No argument against any of those.
A Roman invention indeed!
interesting and informative as always
Thanks again!
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.
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.
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)
I guess you guys have yet to learn to accept that one simply does not argue with Internet people. People believe what they want to believe, it's as simple as that. Neither side will ever convince anyone of anything - its an entirely pointless endeavour. Even more so when there actually is a clearly established consensus. Just go with the flow 😉
The internet definitely isn’t the best place for reasoned dialogue
I argue frequently with mythicists all the time.
On principle, I believe bad reasoning should always be countered. I’m not always trying to convince the person I argue with, but any undecided people that stumble upon the comments section.
If you make it easy for people to write crap (by not challenging it), then more people are likely to believe it.
One word: Midrash.
Great point - I should have mentioned that the existence of Jesus is well attested in Jewish literature of the period even as they reject Christian claims about him. My expertise is more on the roman sources (which are also abundant) so I unintentionally passed over a strong piece of evidence.
Not that this would have done much good with the bizarre comments I'm getting from internet types desperate to see Jesus as ahistorical
yes. He is.
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.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics could believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
t. A person who couldn't prove the Earth is round on their own power.
The 'Jesus Myth' crowd are so goddamn annoying. I of little faith have admittedly, unfortunately spent too much time addressing their inane arguments that would get them laughed out of any history or classical studies department in the country.
Yes and it doesn't help that so many are terminal debate lords who view the contempt of experts as a sign that they're actually on the right side
Religious studies are not taught in history or classical studies department. They're taught in religious programs. Interestingly, if any _Christian_ scholar deviates from the party line of Jesus being historical - they write about doubts and possibilities of forgeries - _they're_ the ones fired from their programs.
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
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.
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."
It's the same old, same old. Yes Jesus existed but was he supernatural ?. I think not, but he was a uniquely inspirational man.
...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.
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
Jesus was God! The evidence is true!
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?
Jesus was a Capricorn.
a
1 миллиард католиков верят, думаю сложно будет убедить их в обратном. Пора закрыть этот глупый вопрос. Спасибо за внимание .
Jesus is believe not knowing.
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.
Alright, alright, Jesus existed! Jesus! Was not resurrected tho
That is a view perfectly in line with the historical record. His existence doesn't imply anything supernatural. To believe so is pretty much what makes one a Christian.
There's proof of the Resurrection and it's in Turin right now. It wasn't debunked in 1988, that debunking attempt was scientifically botched and was later updated with proof of authenticity.
There actually was never an objective account from a historian scientist before Richard Carrier "on the historicity of Jesus". Expect each statement about this matter connected with all the historical material to be found. The result is not conclusive (as it shouldn't be), more there is chance one in three that Jesus was a real person.
I suppose we are very lucky then that a guy 2000 years after the fact was the first to be able to write an objective history. Wonder why he can't get a university job...
It's easy to do an internet search on mythicist proponents and find a list of people who -- long before Carrier - challenged the historicity of Jesus.
*Wonder why he can't get a university job* Does he need one? His book writing allows him to make a living. You sound jealous. How's your university job going?
@@tribunateSPQR You can't expect on objective study from a professor who has tenure at a bible university. The study of Richard Carrier was sponsored by independent people. His credentials are impeccable and as for now there is no rebuttal in sight for this exhaustively researched monumental work. The least we can say that studies done by people that have a job at bible Universities can't be objective, their income depend on it.
@@albertmagician8613 Are you aware that the a large share of the scholars who study the new testament are not associated with any religious institution? Furthermore, the vast majority of scholars that study classical antiquity are not believing christians and hold positions at secular universities.
It's also preposterous to imply that Carrier's work has never been rebutted - it shows that not only do you not have any interaction with the recent scholarly literature, you don't even know how to use Google. Carrier has been extensively refuted by scholars from across the spectrum of religious belief and non-belief.
I'll leave you with a highly accessible piece of commentary from agnostic atheist Bart Ehrman: ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
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
Christus resurrexit!
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.
I am a Christian, and no one can make me otherwise...i dont care what secular academics say or believe...i know my redeemer live and he is alive and ressurected and will come again to rule the world...😊
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.
Not was. IS!!!
A Jesus bin Joseph may have existed but every image of him is pure trope. White boy Jesus never existed in any sense anyway. That's what you missed in your straw man version of the critique.
Get on with it!
practically zero evidence outside of the gospels for an "historical" Jesus.
Rofl
@@decem_sagittae 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".
Fictional character created by the Roman Empire!
Probably not.
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
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.
Biased. And you even admit it.
Hardly? I'm no Christian, but there is an incredible amount of evidence to indicate Jesus existed. Histories were not written then as they are now, so every source is biased. It's about determining what bias is likely to exaggerate and what is likely to be factual. There are several things we can conclude about Jesus' life, and there is also a lot we cannot know.
@@theviper1999uk What evidence? What can you conclude about Jesus's life?
@@DocKinne Those are things we can conclude: Jesus was Jewish man from 1st century AD, who was wandering preacher and at some point in his 30s he lost his life during Pilate residence in Judea, and Jesus's followers were still spreading his teachings. He had male kin called James who was bishop in Jerusalem - presumably his younger maternal half-brother - he was son of woman named Mary and paternity of his legal father was questioned. He also at some point met John of Baptist (his maternal cousin accoridng the Bible) and probably took baptism from him. Not to much, but pretty enough.
There is ONE (1) source for Jesus existing. Actual historians require multiple INDEPENDENT sources for an actual person.
From 1st century we have: 4 canonical gospels, multiple letters, Acts, Jospehus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Talmud texts and letter of man called Mara bar Serapion that alludes to Jesus (he mentioned very much alive teaching of Jewish King who died on the cross - and only two men with that title died this way are Jesus and Antigonus; Antignous was completely frogotten by the end of 1st century). Gospels and other Christian sources were all made independently - there were different author behind each.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *From 1st century we have: 4 canonical gospels* None of which are contemporary to the time of Jesus. None of which claim to be eyewitness accounts, and they're all copies of each other, not independent accounts. *multiple letters* No letters dated from the time of Jesus. *Acts* written around the same time as the book of Luke, probably by the same person, and the book of Luke is dated anywhere from 75 ce to 93 ce. Again, not contemporary to the time of Jesus. *Jospehus* Not born at the time Jesus supposedly lived. Writing nearly 70 years later, and his Testimonium Flavinium is mostly considered an interpolation by later Christians. He didn't write it. *Tacitus* also not born when Jesus supposedly lived. Writing nearly 100 years after the time of Jesus, he only wrote what Christians of his time believed. That's not evidence. *Suetonius* also not born when Jesus supposdly lived only mentions a Chrestus stirring trouble in Rome during the time of Claudius. He's _obviously_ not talking about Jesus *Talmud texts* written nearly a century and a half after the time of Jesus. Not evidence. *letter of man called Mara bar Serapion* Who never mentioned Jesus or even wrote the name Jesus. Christians just _assume_ he's talking about Jesus.
So you've not named a single contemporary source.
@@druidriley3163 Doesn't matter if this is from his lifetime. It is the SAME century. 'They're all copies of each other, not independent accounts.' - We already talked about this: John is NOT copy of synoptic gospels. And synpotic gspels are not copies either - Luke adn Matthew have similarities with Mark, but there are also differences, suggesting existence of some other indpendent source. THINK - if they would all be 'copies', we would have ONE sinoptic gospel, not three.
'Again, not contemporary to the time of Jesus.' - It is contemporary to people who lived when Jesus was still alive. Jesus story didn't die with him, there were many living witnesses, some of them very young.
@@druidriley3163 'Writing nearly 70 years later, and his Testimonium Flavinium is mostly considered an interpolation by later Christians. He didn't write it. ' - Lie again. Testimonium is PARTIAL interpolation.
Neither Jospehus and Tacitus are Christians, but none of them try cast doubt on Christians by claiming their source of inspration was fictional character.
'Talmud texts written nearly a century and a half after the time of Jesus' - Some talmud texts were written as early ads late 1st century.
' Christians just assume he's talking about Jesus.' - I already told this: about WHOM else he would talk about?
I mentioned multiple sources contemporary to Jesus' disciples. Yes, they are posthumous to him, but most were made during time when his witnesses were still alive.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *Lie again. Testimonium is PARTIAL interpolation* So how was I lying? The interpolation is agreed upon, what is still up for debate is how much of it is interpolated. That still hasn't been decided. And since you didn't even know it had been in the first place you're not in any position to sling stones.
*Neither Jospehus and Tacitus are Christians,* No, one was pagan and one was Jewish. The pagan one was only repeating what Christians of his time believed. The Jewish one...he didn't believe in messiahs, if you read the rest of his writings.
*Some talmud texts were written as early ads late 1st century* Some and still not contemporary.
*I already told this: about WHOM else he would talk about* Did you read Josephus? There were at least half a dozen or so would-be messiahs running around during that time. Probably more. Serapion could have been talking about any of them.
*but most were made during time when his witnesses were still alive* Yet what are these witnesses names? Do you know?
Caesar's Messiah is a 2005 book by Joseph Atwill that argues that the New Testament Gospels were written by a group of individuals connected to the Flavian family of Roman emperors: Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. The authors were mainly Flavius Josephus, Berenice, and Tiberius Julius Alexander, with contributions from Pliny the Elder. Although Vespasian and Titus had defeated Jewish nationalist Zealots in the First Jewish-Roman War of 70 AD, the emperors wanted to control the spread of Judaism and moderate its political virulence and continuing militancy against Rome. Christianity, a pacifist and pro-Roman authority religion, was their solution.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory
so they decided to persecute their "state religion" for a few hundred years first just for lolz?
This would mean Roman elites forfeiting their Temples, schools, science, medicine, and engineering, throughout the empire, all this to prevent another Jewish uprising in an insignificant province?
@@andrewpritt8739sounds like factual history.
Bingo.
History has been lied about a lot.
Enormously arrogant manner of reasoning.
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's totally obvious the creator of this video believes and has FAITH in Christianity.
What makes it obvious?
What a disappointing video! There is absolutely no consensus among modern historians that Jesus really existed, and instead of weighing actual pros and cons you only argue against obvious strawman arguments.
This is factually wrong. There is absolutely a consensus among modern historians that Jesus really existed and you saying there isn't doesn't make it true.
@@Tinil0 There is not. If there is, present sources. Not even Bible scholars agree. "I don’t think, however, that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist, or even possibly didn’t exist, but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability. In the first place, what does it mean to affirm that ‘Jesus existed’, anyway, when so many different Jesuses are displayed for us by the ancient sources and modern NT scholars? Logically, some of these Jesuses cannot have existed. So in asserting historicity, it is necessary to define which ones (rabbi, prophet, sage, shaman, revolutionary leader, etc.) are being affirmed-and thus which ones deemed unhistorical. In fact, as things stand, what is being affirmed as the Jesus of history is a cipher, not a rounded personality (the same is true of the King David of the Hebrew Bible, as a number of recent ‘biographies’ show)." bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/dav368029 Emeritus Professor Philip Davies
University of Sheffield, England
August 2012
Name one new testament scholar that holds that position.
This isn't true though. There is absolutely a consensus among experts and those that study the field and the "debate" really just occurs among online cranks.
Thanks for the feedback - I presented the evidence the way that I did because I did not feel it necessary to relitigate the overwhelming majority opinion of scholars operating in this field, but rather to give some of the reasons why scholarship has arrived at this conclusion. I felt this was important so it wasn't simply an argument from authority.
Debate on this subject does exist on the internet, but it is not an idea treated with any merit in academia. Skepticism is of course warranted regarding ancient sources and admitting the existence of Jesus is quite distinct from acknowledging all the claims of Christianity
Did you cite PLINY as evidence??? This video is strangely pious for such a channel.
Jesus obviously existed but he wasn't God.
Evidence?
@@kennybachman35My grandfather was also God, what evidence do you need? You want us to believe that God Almighty who constructed the universe himself was birthed from a woman's vagina. To then be subsequently murdered by his creation in order for him to forgive them from his wrath. That sounds eerily familiar to paganism with Heracles for example, being a demigod. Christianity is also a rebranded pagan version of the cult of Mithras. The concept of trinity is universal among all of the pagan religions Christianity included.
If Jesus was God (in live) is something we cannot say for sure, but nowadays he is in the same way (but not form) that Romulus and Augustus were and are no more.
@@kennybachman35considering God is nothing more than a made up idea dating back to early man with no concept of how the world worked around them and thus attributed everything to supernatural beings, and that the Christian god is nothing more than an extension of that made up idea, no, Jesus was not god. The entire idea of gods is simply an absurd belief in the 21st century with what we know today, and with the corruption of religion as a whole by the extreme right and their backwards beliefs, it should be even more glaringly obvious that there is no supernatural being pulling the strings of humanity. And I apologize if that is harsh, but it’s true.
You are confusing belief with knowledge.
No. There is no evidence whatsoever to claim that ‘Jesus’ to have ever existed. There is nothing Christianity can do to make mythology fact.
You should probably watch Zeitgeist. There’s absolutely no consensus among historians about his existence. Most “sources” are christians historians, so…
I know Wikipedia is not the be all end all of research, but it's always a good starting point. anyways, literally the second sentence in jesus' Wikipedia article reads: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically."
@@SimonDoercontrolled opposition.
Fact.
Zeitgeist is worse then this
@@kennybachman35capable of full sentence?
Nope
Here's a clue, there is NO evidence!