Jesus Has Left the Building, Part 1 (The Bible)

[siannarino]

I ALSO BELVIED IN JESHUA. AFTER READING THE BIBLE, COVER TO COVER 3 TIMES, I STARTED TO UNDERSTAND. THEIR IS NO TRINTY, G-D DOES NOT HAVE A SON AND THERE ARE 150K MISTRANSLATIONS FROM HEBREW TO GREEK. PAUL WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE "SAVED" BY GRACE. HE SAY'S HEY FORGET THE LAWS. PSALM 119 DEVOTES 176 PASSAGES ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LAW AND COMMANDMENTS. MAYBE G-D WAS JUST PLAYING A JOKE ON HIS PEOPLE? "NOT."

[alvaboyfilms]

If having very few written references to Christ outside the bible within the first 50 yrs of his crucifixion qualifies Christ as a myth than having absolutely no written references eluding to Christ as a myth until 1840 (Bruno Bauer) over 1800 yrs after the crucifixion, by its own reasoning, would render the Christ myth a NO possibility. Internet sensationalist and many modern Jesus Mythologist fail miserably to bring anything new to the table.

[TaylorX04]

@alvaboyfilms This is the dumbest argument I've seen, and I'm saying this as someone who now accepts the historicity of a figure named Jesus (though not the one of the gospels). Theories and ideas do not suffer from the same historical problems that PEOPLE do. It takes time to discover and understand theories and ideas, but those things have been there all along, whether we know it or not. The late proposal of the Christ myth theory may only show that our Christian culture was slow to accept it.

[alvaboyfilms]

@TaylorX04 Can you be more specific as to what part of my argument your directing you criticism at? Is it at my posted comment or my video response that you didn't allow?

[TaylorX04]

@alvaboyfilms I didn't see any video response request. I'd be glad to approve it if it actually shows up in my inbox. You wouldn't be trying to mislead people into thinking I'm a disreputable person, now would you? ;-)

[atlacalt77]

@alvaboyfilms a myth or a history will not give any answer to any one, when he was in front of pilate, " i was born and came into the world for this one purpose, to speak about the truth. whoever belongs to the truth listens to me" this is the answer you will get, it is not importan how much you write or you konw.

A few will know and be save by him. Remenber, becareful with the teachings of the pharisees. read john 7: 21

[MrMZaccone]

@alvaboyfilms Is it really surprising that no one question the Jesus story until 1840 when for centuries, one could be burned alive for questioning it at all?

[alvaboyfilms]

@MrMZaccone I smell a straw man buring :-)

[TaylorX04]

@alvaboyfilms ...do you even know what a strawman is? Do you dispute the historical fact that heretics were burned at the stake for centuries, often simply for having the wrong Christology?

[alvaboyfilms]

@TaylorX04

No I don't, but to go from some heretics, in some cultures of certain societies of certain eras to suggesting that "any and all" is a fallacious leap.

[TaylorX04]

@alvaboyfilms That may be true, but it wouldn't be a strawman. Also, whether we talk about torture and death or not, the fact that the world has overwhelmingly been Christian for the last 1000+ years is a good explanation for why the existence of Jesus hasn't been scrutinized much until now. What believing Christian would normally stop to think about whether or not Jesus existed?

[alvaboyfilms]

@TaylorX04 Agreed not a strawman & I was being factitious Yet his comment definitely reeks of an ignoratio elenchi as does yours. It is a fact that people where tortured and burned to death and yes the world has overwhelmingly been Christian for the last 1000+ yrs but it does not logically follow from these premisses that the historical Jesus didn't exist. I'm with Bart Ehrman in that I believe the historical evidence overwhelmingly points to the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

[TaylorX04]

@alvaboyfilms Wow. Nobody's arguing from those premises that Jesus didn't exist. Those premises do, however, offer a decent explanation for why the Jesus myth hypothesis has only caught on in the last couple centuries. You should know this because you ignorantly insinuated that the late origins of Jesus mythicism somehow invalidate it. Also, Bart Ehrman does NOT think what you claim. He believes in a historical Jesus, but it isn't the figure of the gospels.

[alvaboyfilms]

@TaylorX04 I was hardly trying to insinuate that the late origins of the Christ myth somehow invalidated it. I was simply trying to highlight the silliness of one argument by using another. My apologies for any lack of clarity, its not always easy to make a point with limited characters we're allowed. With that being said, any explanation as to why the myth hypothesis has only caught on in the last couple centuries seems to me to be completely irreverent to the value of the hypothesis itself.

[TaylorX04]

@alvaboyfilms Well, we seem to agree on that, at least. I think you're really stretching it with the 9/11 truther and moon landing comparisons. Yes, there are some Jesus mythers whose sole impetus is to deny the existence of Jesus at any cost, but there are also those who simply don't find the proposed evidence persuasive. The evidence for Jesus is woefully less than for 9/11 being a terrorist attack or for us landing on the moon.

[alvaboyfilms]

@TaylorX04 No I don't thinks its a stretch to equate this myth with other such sensationalist hearsay. On the contrary, I think the fact that we don't find this being discussed or taken serious within any peer-reviewed journals and/or publications only goes demonstrate the weakness of the hypothesis & why its only recognition has been within the unscholarly yet lucrative world of pop-culture publications. Its In this sense I find this debate as futile as any other such sensationalist debates.

[TaylorX04]

@alvaboyfilms Unlike science journals, religion journals are often run by believing academics, or at the very least academics who may still cling to some vestige of Christianity. But fortunately peer review is not itself the determining factor of a sound hypothesis, especially in a field like history, where method is much more debated than in science. Seems like you should know this.

[alvaboyfilms]

@TaylorX04 The absence of the myth in the world of peer-reviewed journals may not be a determining factor but it definitely serves as a barometer for its weakness also my peer-reviewed reference was to the entire community (secular & religious) on which we look to for all our knowledge & facts of the historical world & such a hand-waving dismissal of this community only highlights why such debates (centered more around sensationalism than facts) are nothing more than an exercises in futility.

[TaylorX04]

@alvaboyfilms A "hand-waving dismissal"? Talk about sensationalism, lol. You do realize that scientific peer review is much more uniform because it's structured around a method on which there is pretty much universal agreement... and historical review has nothing quite as strong. I'm also curious to know why you think that New Testament publications would not have a great number of religious believers with personal biases against Jesus myth. It's not dismissal, it's statement of fact.

[alvaboyfilms]

@TaylorX04 If the Christ myth was at least being debated within the historical scholarly community (secular & non) in the same way we find global warming is being debated within the scientific community maybe an argument based on biases & agenda's might work but the Christ myth is basicaly a non-issue amongst NT and/or historical scholars that remains largely within pop-culture publications & the internet. Our discussion here on YouTube being a perfect example.

[alvaboyfilms]

@TaylorX04 Obviously as a skeptical agnostic Ehrman wouldn't subscribe to the divinity attributed to Christ in the gospels but as a NT scholar & historian he also doesn't subscribe to any of the various myth hypothesis that appeal more to the sensationalist impulse than they do the honest seeker of historical facts. There is as much hope of reaching a conclusion to this debate as there is to reaching a conclusion of a 911 thruther debated or moon landing hoax debate.

[MrMZaccone]

@alvaboyfilms You know what they say about that right? He who smelt it dealt it.

[alvaboyfilms]

@MrMZaccone And he finishes his knock down argument with an Ad Hominem.. Classic..

[MrMZaccone]

@alvaboyfilms No, he (I) haven't presented a knockdown argument. I've presented ridicule. "“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..." - Thomas Jefferson. I also presented no straw man argument. Or perhaps you'd like to explain how that's not the case.

[TaylorX04]

@MrMZaccone I'm so stealing that Jefferson quote, lol. Thanks.

[MrMZaccone]

@TaylorX04 As long as you give Jefferson credit, it's not stealing, be my guest.

[winygirl101]

LampPlaceThing, Your right scriptures never lie. especially scriptures form Greek Mythology.

[judoyodan]

Aside from the total lack of historical evidence of a Jesus, the most compelling argument for the Jesus character being completely mythological is the absence of a reason for him to exist. According to lore, the reason for "Jesus" was to appease a god and redeam mankind. Since the possibility of there being a god is very close to zreo, so is the possibility of an historical Jesus.

[amaxamon]

I have no problem as an atheist accepting that there was a Jesus behind the Jesus cult. We speak casually of Zoroaster even tho his supposed sayings were not recorded until (conservatively) 850 yrs after his birth. Ditto many other figures with nothing more than their writings to testify to their existence (and in the absence of original texts). So I'm willing to refer to Jesus as a person.

[mp478070]

Great work, can't wait to see the other parts...

[LampPlaceThing]

Intro 0:03-0:08 "Since the 19th century a academic movement has been striving to uncover the historical Jesus"

And I presume you don't see any historians before then, trying to dig up historical documents about Jesus... OH right those weren't "academic" enough.

"...that the miraculous deeds attributed to him are legendary invention for example" Well.... if you believed them than you wouldn't be a atheist or agnostic.

See How To Convert An Atheist - Part 12-14 (by killingthedevil).

[TaylorX04]

@LampPlaceThing "OH right those weren't "academic" enough."

Or maybe it's because historical method wasn't really something given much value among most cultures until the 19th century. The same was even true of archaeology.

"if you believed them than you wouldn't be a atheist or agnostic."

Wow, how insightful. If I believed in a supernatural god, I wouldn't be an atheist or agnostic. Your point being what exactly? Why do you think there are so many bible scholars who doubt those miracles?

[LampPlaceThing]

@TaylorX04 I should personally do more research on the prior 19 century, studies of history, before speaking, but anyways....

As for "miracles" they didn't seem to be a lie... unless scriptures were lying, and their was mass delusion.

What ever. I thank you for replying.

[alvaboyfilms]

@TaylorX04 If having very few written references to Christ outside the bible within the first 150 yrs of his crucifixion qualifies Christ as a myth, then having absolutely "NO" written references eluding to Christ as a myth until 1840 (Bruno Bauer) over 1800 yrs after the crucifixion, by its own reasoning, would render the Christ myth a "NO" possibility. Internet sensationalist and many modern Jesus Mythologist fail miserably to bring anything new to the table.

[ddisil]

you have thought out this series well. However, I don't think that interpretation of Mark is valid. There must be first evidence that "Mark's" work was only a metaphoric narrative. I am unaware of any wide spread belief that this was the case.

[TaylorX04]

@ddisil What would constitute evidence of a "metaphoric narrative" to you, and how would this contrast to other known metaphorical narratives?

[GraeHall]

My brain wants to rape your brain; it would cuddle afterwards.

[dutchpuppy2]

Taylor, I really appreciate the fact that you present your clips calmly and in a straight-forward manner. The raving lunatics that appear on both side of the issue are not doing anyone any good. Thanks!! 

[dutchpuppy2]

I've heard that the Bible has been used to direct acheological digs for cities that non-believers could not find after many years, using other means. These digs, following the Bible, where then successful. I will research this. What I can say for sure, for myself, is that God has worked in my life and in others' lives, in ways that I feel defy explanation. He is real. He is working among us. So is His, and our, enemy.

[TaylorX04]

@dutchpuppy2 Even if this is true, you know what it proves? Just that there are some cities named in the bible that the authors didn't invent. Nothing more. It doesn't tell us anything about the truth of the rest of the book.

Your personal convictions are of little relevance, because obviously I don't share them, and they certainly have no bearing on the historicity of Jesus.

[dutchpuppy2]

@TaylorX04 It's easy to verify. What it does SHOW (I'm avoiding the word, "prove") is that the Bible has merit.

[TaylorX04]

@dutchpuppy2 What's easy to verify? If the bible has merit for having some minor historical details right, then The Iliad has just as much merit for talking about the historical city of Troy. But you wouldn't say all the rest of The Iliad is likely true on that basis. Or would you?

[dutchpuppy2]

@TaylorX04 Of course not. One of my favorite thoughts to remember is: to make a really good lie, put some truth in it. Did the Bible do that? Certainly the arguments I watch from youtube certainly do.

I make mention of simple truths that CAN be established from the Bible since too many detractors think everything in it is a lie or fantasy.

[TaylorX04]

@dutchpuppy2 Obviously I don't believe its supernatural claims, but as I say in the last video of this series, the problem with the notion that every myth has a grain of truth behind it is that it's often difficult, perhaps even impossible, to determine what that truth is. There could have been someone somewhere who spoke the teachings attributed to Christ in the bible, but what little useful information who do have does not warrant assuming that this Jesus figure from the bible existed.

[dutchpuppy2]

@TaylorX04 In response to your statement, "There could have been someone somewhere..." (though it can't be "proved") is someone motivated a group of people that suddenly exploded into a quickly growing group, that spread. That first group were nearly all killed for their beliefs. In my opinion, due to experience, including military, is that humans as a group are generally cowards. For nearly all those disciples to believe enough to die for their beliefs that were lies is out of the norm.

[TaylorX04]

@dutchpuppy2 No, it's not out of the norm for a person to die for their beliefs. What is out of the norm is for a person to die for beliefs they know are lies. However, it's doubtful that a person can hold a belief they know to be false. It's not clear if the disciples would have known their beliefs were a lie or not, but more importantly, the reports of their martyrdom come overwhelmingly late, from (often conflicting) church traditions rather than the bible.

[Gooberlicious54]

So there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for a historical Jesus?

I always thought there would be SOME outside of the Bible...but even Josephus was not contemporary. And non contemporary writings, whether or not they were forged, can hardly be considered evidence.

[TaylorX04]

@Gooberlicious54 Yeah, that was a bit surprising to me too, back when I started looking at the historicity of Jesus. Apologists like to point out that there are no contemporary accounts of other ancient figures like Socrates, but they're just wrong. Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon all wrote of Socrates within the time he supposedly lived. Whereas Jesus, who taught and stayed in major centers of commerce, went up against the Romans, went into the temple, etc. - has no contemporary evidence.

[Pal3horse68]

That said, I am enjoying the series (As an Atheist, borderline Anti-theist it's hard not to), although I admit I disagree with your conclusions. Blame Bart Erhman : P

[TaylorX04]

@Pal3horse68 I will be discussing Bart Ehrman and the objections of other scholars in part five. Personally, I find their reasons for accepting the historicity of Jesus to be surprisingly weak.

[Pal3horse68]

@TaylorX04

Heh, funny, I'd say the same thing about the Christ-as-Myth scholars, with regards to dismissing the historicity of Jesus. Of course, in my case, I really *want* them to be right - I'm just not convinced : )

[TaylorX04]

@Pal3horse68 I used to feel the same way and I would actually agree with you that most Christ-myth scholars use weak arguments. However, I think this series outlines plenty of good reasons for calling Jesus' existence into question. It is far from the black and white issue that apologists make it out to be, but I am not fully sold on the idea that Jesus never existed either. What matters to me is what we can say about Jesus historically, and at this point, it's virtually nothing.

[Pal3horse68]

@TaylorX04

Fair enough. I disagree, but only slightly - (I'd write more, but i'm at the limit)

Out of curiosity, are you going to address the manner in which what sources we have are evaluated? (Criterion of Dissimilarity/Embarrassment, multiple attestation, etc etc) I noticed in the first video you seem to dismiss the gospels (And, by extension, sources like the hypothetical Q) without saying much other than 'We need to be skeptical', which is what those criterion are supposed to address.

[TaylorX04]

@Pal3horse68 I almost went into discussing the criterion of embarrassment in this video, with connection to the Tacitus passage, but I decided to save it for the next video, which will discuss a couple pagan critics. I think it's more suitable there.

I don't know how much I'll get into the other criteria, but I will be covering the general objections in part five. Those criteria are useful in text criticism, I think, but for establishing a historical figure? I'm not so sure.

[TaylorX04]

(cont'd) Oops, I thought I was commenting on part 3, for some reason. The criterion of embarrassment will be in part four.

[Pal3horse68]

A minor question/comment with regards to the bit on Nazareth at the end: As I understand it, it's generally accepted that Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source when writing their gospels (Along with possibly Q, M, L). As such, the different birth stories are a result of their attempts to explain why Jesus came from Nazareth despite the fact that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem. So why would the earliest sources make up a non-existent city when the 'proper' city was well known?

[TaylorX04]

@Pal3horse68 Well, Matthew 2:22-23 mentions a prophecy that "he shall be called a Nazarene". This does not appear in the Old Testament, but it may indicate that there was some scriptural source prior to the first century that made such a claim of the messiah. If this prophecy originally read "he shall be called a Nazarite" and was mistranslated, that may explain the invention of Nazareth by the gospel authors.

[Pal3horse68]

@TaylorX04

Possibly - I don't have my Study Bible in front of me, but I seem to recall reading that that particular prophecy doesn't actually occur in the OT - More evidence that the author of the Gospel was trying to justify Jesus' place of birth? Just seems more plausible than making up a prophecy and a city to go with it.

[TaylorX04]

@Pal3horse68 I just said it's not in the OT. What I'm trying to say is that Matthew's author may have read a prophecy like that in another book of scripture not included among the canon. They were known to do that at times.

[amoxtlacatl]

@TaylorX04

3:06

Did you mean "his conviction that _Jesus_ was the Messiah"?

Just checking.

[TaylorX04]

@amoxtlacatl Yes, I suppose so, lol. I still slip into the habit of using it like a surname fairly often.

[amoxtlacatl]

@TaylorX04

No biggie. ;) Old habits die hard.

Even if you no longer or never believed, it's hard to subtract oneself from habits of our overall culture.

[utoad9]

Great video. Looking forward to the series.

[inday811]

and yes, He is rich! Very rich, of His grace and glory.

You just didn't understood it very well, do you?

and please,, TaylorX04,,, stop all these.

You're misleading people.

I would suggest that you better listen to Brother Eli Soriano's Bible Exposition,

He would be a great help to you.

Just open up your heart and understanding.

[TaylorX04]

@inday811 I actually figured that some Christian would try to argue that Jesus was rich in a metaphorical way, after seeing this video. But unfortunately for you, when does Jesus ever speak of himself as rich, even metaphorically? He says "blessed are the POOR in spirit", he identifies the poor in his parables as humble heroes... I think you're just not understanding very well! ;-)

Understanding comes through the mind, not the heart. No wonder you're having difficulty with this.

[LordNapalm]

Great essay.

On to part 2 ;)

[gguilford72]

lol, the life of jesus sounds like the plot of mass effect 2.

[revjimbob]

Jesus seems totally pissed off in 5:19

[ProfMTH]

In the May 24th issue of The New Yorker, there's an excellent article on the current state of scholarship about Jesus. It's entitled "What Did Jesus Do?", written by Adam Gopnik. You might find it useful as you move through this series. Gopnik opines that the view "that the search for the historical Jesus is like the search for the historical Superman...

[ProfMTH]

(con't) @TaylorX04 ...--that there's nothing there but a hopeful story...--has by now been maginalized...to the Internet; the scholar Earl Doherty defends it...with grace and tenacity." If you have time in the series, it would be interesting if you could address whether Gopnik has this right. Is the "Jesus never existed" hypothesis truly marginalized among scholars (and I'm about critical scholars)? Thanks!

[TaylorX04]

Thanks for the recommendation. I read the article, and I do think scholars have attempted to marginalize the skeptical approach to Christ's historicity. Even liberal non-theistic scholars like Ehrman seem to offer no solid reasoning for presuming Jesus was a historical figure. I think there are several reasons for this, which I will go into in part five. Suffice it to say, I believe the marginalization of this view is less about research and facts and more about ridiculing uncomfortable ideas.

[TaylorX04]

(cont'd) Gopnik also mentions something in his article that I hadn't quite put together in such a way: Paul's divine Christ precedes the 'wise rabbi' Jesus of the gospels and liberal theology. Thus the earliest accounts we have utilize very heavy metaphor with very Greek concepts of divinity when speaking of Christ, and this from a man who only experienced Jesus through a vision. I think this is all the more reason to be suspicious of a historical Jesus.

[inday811]

@TaylorX04 and why would that be in contrast? HELLO?

How would you know if which book has been written first?

How would you really know, if in those times, ALL of his four brothers were unbelievers?

and how would you be very definite that James were one of those brothers mentioned - who is unbeliever?

Lastly.. In what verse did Paul mentioned the name of James in your 2:35 argument?

well i want to justify Mark 3:20-21... that maybe his family was just protecting

[TaylorX04]

@inday811 Biblical scholars are in overwhelming agreement that the epistles were authored first. They determine this by lining up the events of Paul's life, as reported in Acts, with Roman history. Look up the essay "Dating the Pauline Epistles" by Ronald Troxel. It's a good start. Earlychristianwritings[dot]com may also be helpful.

I don't know that all of his brothers were definitely unbelievers, but I dismiss the Josephan reference to James in part two anyway.

[TaylorX04]

@TaylorX04 (cont'd) The statement at 2:35 is based on Galatians 1:19. By saying he saw none of the other apostles, only James, Paul is implying that James was an apostle and therefore a believer.

His family was protecting him by calling him crazy in Mark 3:20-21? I don't think so. Immediately following those verses, he is accused of working by Satan's power by the Pharisees, so I think the point is that no one trusted Jesus.

[inday811]

@TaylorX04 oh come on!, give me a break. Don't pretend and site bible verses as if you are a believer of Christ when you are actually not.

and pls., don't ever open up topic on philosophy. I am sorry. I don't have that much of a knowledge. But i can understand. That would be enough.

and besides, i already have given you the name of the person whom you can debate about ALL of what's been bothering you.

and correction, i don't have any difficulties with regards onto my faith.

[TaylorX04]

@inday811 As if I'm a believer? I've never pretended to be a believer, but if you somehow think a person has to be a Christian in order to cite scripture, you're an idiot. I haven't said anything about philosophy here either, so I don't think you do understand. Furthermore, you give me the name of a televangelist who has several lawsuits against him for rape, tax evasion, forging prison release documents, etc. What, can you not defend your own faith? You have to recommend a charlatan to me? Lol!

[inday811]

@TaylorX04 you're lying. of course you are pretending. and misleading people. and thanks for calling me an idiot. i am not bothered. but you are. see? you barely known that person, and there you are judging? lol. yeah. talk to yourself. lol

[TaylorX04]

@inday811 To be lying or pretending, I would have to be telling people I'm a Christian, which I am not. Find me any instance of video or comment where I have pretended to be Christian. To me, that would be like pretending to be stupid. Who really wants to do that?

Hey, don't be mad because you got called on your bullshit. :-) You're accusing me of lying while suggesting I check out a scumbag televangelist. Well, I checked him out, and he's not a trustworthy guy at all. You respect a real liar.

[inday811]

@TaylorX04 nope. i am not mad at all. it's just depressing to know that there are people like you in this world. bright, but dark deep within. the lawsuit cases you found about that guy? well, it so happened that there are some religious group who wants to destroy him. It's called the Church of Christ, and you don't know what they are capable of doing and how influential they are in my country. None of their leaders would dare to stand up a debate against Eli. And that is the truth.

[TaylorX04]

@inday811 Dark within? I'm not the one supporting a televangelist who's been accused of rape, tax evasion, and forging prison release papers. The Church of Christ may have been involved in the rape charge, but it was the justice department of the Philippines that recommended filing them, took the case to a higher court, and busted Soriano on tax evasion. Interpol has even recognized his criminal activity, like forging the prison papers, and he is considered a fugitive. THAT is the truth.

[inday811]

@TaylorX04. Fugitive or not, he is still my true Hero. You should have known him better, and see his heart. As what i have said, this group Church of Christ can do anything possible under the sun. Of course they would do anything and everything to push him in. And to remind you, that Justice system here in my country is worst than you can think of. I am not a member of his church, but i do know of what's going on.

[inday811]

@TaylorX04 I haven't known a leader on any other congregations that teaches the right thing as how he does. Just to remind you as how were the Apostles and followers of Christ been treated before. They've been persecuted. and thats exactly is happening to him now. No wonder. Because i do believe so that he is a man of God. Truly a man of God. You should widen up your research about him, and his Church doctrines before going further with any accusations.

[TaylorX04]

@inday811 Lol, every minister who is busted in scandal tries to defend himself by saying "the enemies of the lord are persecuting me!" I learned to see through that bullshit years ago. I don't care what his doctrines are, because they have no relevance to the crimes he's accused of. Many people hold hypocritical views, like Ted Haggard, for example, who denouncing homosexuals for years and then was caught with a male prostitute. Where's your evidence that Soriano's innocent?

[inday811]

@TaylorX04 I'm sorry if i have called you a liar, pretender, and so on... but it was just my initial reactions. God knows what's behind yourself. But see? As how i have known the story made up some Jewish or Muslim people, that Jesus wasn't really the person being hanged in there? Wow!. how can you actually believe that? How can there be a true redemption if it was just all been like a play?

That would be ridiculous!

[TaylorX04]

@inday811 You haven't contributed anything to our discussion except accusing me of nonsense, while exalting this Philippino televangelist as some kind of moral ideal. Opinions are nothing special unless they are informed, and yours clearly aren't. You talk of God, when there is no evidence for God. You talk of Jesus' crucifixion, when there is no evidence of Jesus or of his crucifixion. That was the point of this video, which you have altogether ignored. Your ranting is off topic, so goodbye.

[amoxtlacatl]

@inday811

Maybe there is no redemption.

Maybe there is no need for redemption.

Have you considered the possibility that the New Testament is not the word of "God"?

Have you considered the possibility that the Old Testament is not the word of "God"?

Have you considered the possibility that "God" does not exist - meaning no one need redeem anyone?

As TaylorX04 suggested, do not be led by your emotions alone.

Use your reason and ask what hard undeniable evidence you have God exists.

[NotWhollySane]

@ProfMTH

I'm glad you've decided to watch this series, and chime in. I've been having a lengthy discussion with TalorX04 about why I disagree with mythicism (see the comments in part 2). Right now we are trying to figure out whether Paul *really* says he met Jesus' blood relative in Gal 1:19. I think he does say that and I think it is a major roadblock to mythicism.

[nthonyvega]

Since a small boy felt lied to. Now I know I was. Thank you.

[roentgen571]

excellent stuff.  I look forward to the rest of the series!

[RadarKat73080]

I assumed that Jesus, in fact most legendary characters, existed. But a large amount of the story was added and exaggerated later. Jesus may have said 10% of what is written down in some form or another, half remembered sayings and proverbs. All the miracles were added later. Many wise and holy men were believed by some to be miracle workers.

[mtsac1]

ok...more please

[TobiasELee]

great stuff - thanks for doing the series - look forward to the next installments.

[rationalmuscle]

Really solid, brilliant work TaylorX04. Glad I found your channel!

[TheAtheistSwede]

Brilliant stuff as always. I expect much when I see a video from you in my subscription list and you deliver every time.

[DeletedDelusion]

Jesus the nazarite...

That's really interesting.

[DeletedDelusion]

On Wikipeadia it says that a nazarite takes a vow to avoid corpses and graves, abstaines from wine and vinegar.

I think it does not fit in with some of the Jesus stories.

[TaylorX04]

@DeletedDelusion There are different types of nazarites. One who chooses to be a Samson-like nazarite does not have to avoid corpses, actually. Taking the nazarite vow is really non-ceremonial, just a simple declaration on the part of the individual, so there's not much standing in the way of anyone claiming to be a nazarite.

[WaysOfMan]

@TaylorX04 As far as I know there are two types of nazarites, the first like Samson is a nazarite from birth (see Judges 13:3-5) which requires an angel to notify the mother prior to conception that her child will be a nazarite as even she must avoid wine etc throughout the duration of the pregnancy the second type is a temporary (30 days or more) vow to abstain from something followed by a special sacrifice in the Temple. As far as I know no such stories are attributed to jesus.

[TaylorX04]

@WaysOfMan Well, it's still not quite that simple, and the temple offerings are only required to end the nazarite period. A man can declare himself a permanent nazarite, or specify a set time, 30 days, or be a Samson-like one. All that is needed is a declaration. Judges 13:3-5 is referring to Samson, not Samson-like nazarites, so I don't think it's clear that the angel appearance is a requirement. The "rules" on being a nazarite are more lenient than you think.

[WaysOfMan]

@TaylorX04 you're right, i looked it up and there is that third type of nazarite

[barefootID]

Interesting.

I am investigating the secret gospel of Thomas. Really fascinating, and to me clearly superior to John.

Have you taken into account, for this research of yours, to investigate the apocrypha too?

[TheOJDrinker]

Have you seen the movie 'The God Who Wasn't There'? Pretty much was an overview of this topic.

[TaylorX04]

@TheOJDrinker Yes, I have, but I'm not a fan. It goes more into the pagan copycat savior stuff, much of which is overwhelmingly coincidental or even plain false.

[Feredir28]

Thanks you so much Taylor. I have been wanting to do a video series about the historicity of jesus for nearly a year, I just do not have the material to make videos like this.

[fpissarra]

Another great video!

[CHAS1422]

I've been awaiting this series....Bravo for the intro! You are one of the best A's on youtube and greatly undersubscribed. I have recently speculated that the new testament was actually written in Alexandria, in Greek (not aramaic), by syncretic hellenized jews. The stories almost appear to be polemics against the puppet Sanhedron and their vacilating Roman overlords. Jesus was the divine superhero whose destiny was to suffer at the hands of thier sins. What a story.

[zombiesmasher]

Awesome Vid!!!

[Bloodhammer1967]

Awesome. going to link this to my facebook account.

[NATEandtheMONKEY]

fantastic work taylor!

i'm gonna fav all of these for future reference.

[FlightIsLife]

This is something ive been secretly wanting you to do, Taylor... and im super excited to see your take and research on this topic.. its something ive always been interested in, and something ive researched on my own.

[DoctorE0]

Jeebu$,batman,spiderman... made up stuff

[8WholeThing]

IMHO, Mark was explaining why the religion was destroyed in Judea instead of having God returning to rule. The women being afraid to tell and the apostles not meeting Jesus in Galilee was the last straw. The cursing of the fig tree, the Temple tantrum, then noticing the withered fig tree is a foreshadowing of the destruction.

[Lovingdoubt]

What a great video. :) Thanks so much for making it. I really look forward to the rest of this series.

[tenneral]

Great video & I look forward to the series. All my life I believed in Jesus: but now that I have given up blind faith, I am able to see that it's more than likely that no such person as Jesus the wonder-worker ever existed. Indeed there's plenty of scholarly evidence that the religion based on him began as a myth in the mind of Paul and took shape as a quasi-reality much later.

[michalchik]

nice job

[AnUglyAmerican]

great vid.

[bonnie43uk]

excellent video. Nothing would please me more to think Jesus existed, but, the history is so sketchy you need a whole lotta faith to buy into it.

You'd a thought God would have made it irrefutable for his proof, but sadly he's happy to lead us up blind alley.

Looking forward to the rest in this series.

[pilgrimpater]

Good vid, i am especially looking forward to your presentation of extra biblical accounts as the NT and it's history clearly do not present a cast iron case for JC.

[whirlii]

Good stuff!

[TheJoshJman]

dope!

[TruthSurge]

Good vid. I have done maybe 30 vids on the Jesus Myth theory if you get any time to check out a few. Vid 1 is only a summary but 2A and 2B begin my presentation of evidence.

[TaylorX04]

@TruthSurge I will have to check them out soon. Glad you liked the vid.

[DohsOfReality]

@TaylorX04

TS's series is indeed good - worth a watch

[GuineaPigDan]

While addressing what the Talmud may say about Jesus, do you think you could address a "proof" for him concerning a cord in the Temple that would change color to signify the acceptance of sin sacrifices? It's said to have stopped changing color 40 years before the temple's destruction, supposedly aligning with the crucifixtion. The talmud passage is Bavli, Yoma 39b.

[TaylorX04]

@GuineaPigDan Yeah, I can probably fit that in. It's relatively easy to dismiss, knowing that the messianic age is actually supposed to usher in an age of animal sacrifice, according to Hebrew scripture. So if Jesus was the messiah, why would the cord representing animal sacrifice turn white, like those sacrifices are no longer needed? That's the opposite of what should be expected of the biblical messiah.

[GuineaPigDan]

@TaylorX04 Thanks!

[TaylorX04]

@GuineaPigDan Damn, I forgot to include this. I'll try to make sure it goes in the third part though, as an addendum of sorts.

[adrenacrumb]

Very interesting. Is this you at the end of this video?

/watch?v=K16taQ_vv0s

[TaylorX04]

@adrenacrumb Yes it was. I've already had a couple people tell me about that, lol.

[NotWhollySane]

Nice video. Galations has Paul refering to Jesus as a real person. He basically tells the galations that they reject Jesus even though they saw him rise up to heaven with their own eyes.

[TaylorX04]

@NotWhollySane It's not quite that simple. Paul actually says, "Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified" to the Galatians. Why "portrayed"? Why not just say Christ was crucified if they saw it with their own eyes? Paul then goes on to ask if they are saved by the law or by believing "what you heard". It doesn't seem like he meant that the Galatians literally watched Jesus be crucified, possibly that they watched others testify to it.

[NotWhollySane]

@TaylorX04

Urgh! Ya the word that was "translated" as portrayed means written, or announced.

*sigh* stupid shady bible translators chose to slightly mistranslate the word. So yeah galatians 3:1 does seem rather ambiguous. Thanks for pointing that out.

[TruthSurge]

@NotWhollySane A cursory reading certainly seems to lean that way but that's not what the verse says. As Taylor said below there is nothing in that verse to make me believe that the Galatians saw jesus rise up to heaven and furthermore, did they have high-powered telescopes back then to view Jesus ascending through the air over Palestine? Jesus ascending up from somewhere near the Mt. of Olives, not Greece. I am a huge Jesus Myth proponenet and all these "objection" verses need closer looks.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

Thessalonians on the jews may be an interpolation. Check out a user named Truthsurge

[TruthSurge]

@TheAtheistPaladin haha thanks for the shoutout, bro. I want to do my next "objections" vid where I explain how Paul could refer to Jesus as a "man" (anthropos) in two different verses.

[aartvegan]

Pauline christianity has a lot to answer for.

[Mathesonguy]

This looks to be a GREAT series. Thanks.

[D3PyroGS]

Taylor, thanks for doing this series. I'm sure many people besides myself will get a lot out of it.

[nedbeaty72]

Good points as always, time for Christains to trott out the same old tired (and incorrect) arguments all over again.

[Obasiliasfilosofos]

To me the real Jesus was a warrior Rabbi who sought to expel the Romans from Israel along with the Jews that collaborated with Rome like the Pharisees, This Jesus was arrested and put to death after he tried to kill King Herod, He was then crucified by the roman prefect Pontus Pilate.

The survivors of his movement, began to mythologize him giving rise to a new gnostic sect of Judaism that would later evolve into christianity.

[TaylorX04]

@Obasiliasfilosofos And what do you base this wild speculation on? Lol...

[Obasiliasfilosofos]

@TaylorX04 , "its just wild speculation". Josephus mentioned several men named Jesus in his historical account of the Roman Jewish war, One or two of those "Jesuses" claimed to be the messiah and were killed in battle fighting the Romans.

To me if there was a "basis" for a historical Jesus, It was either a radical cult leader who was killed prior to the 6673 war or a popular Jewish Rebel who fought the Romans.

[TaylorX04]

@Obasiliasfilosofos I am aware of Josephus' references to multiple "Jesuses", but few of them are from the time period Jesus Christ allegedly lived in. I can understand thinking the Jesus of the bible is an amalgamation of different characters, but when the resemblance to the gospels is so minute to be non-existent, what's the point in saying the person is the "real Jesus"? Also, it seems like you've taken one detail and forced it into the framework of the gospel events.

[TruthSurge]

@TaylorX04 Precisely. Now, there's nothing wrong with punting on 4th down but it's just a natural progression to dismiss first the miraculous, then the very character we see once the smoke clears. It just gets thinner... and thinner and that's only the gospel side of things. Getting into the epistles, you get the distinct picture of a Jesus who was NOT a human being on Earth but a deity who soon would be (parousia).

[joshTheGoods]

@Obasiliasfilosofos That seems rather at odds with the outcome of Christian philosophy which has many Pharisean qualities like: monotheism, belief in afterlife, and the 'turn the other cheek,' attitude. Some would argue that the foundations of Christian philosophy are so strongly Pharisean that Christianity must be considered an offshoot of the Pharisees. Bertrand Russell makes this connection in the second of his books in A History of Western Philosophy.

[war0cloud]

@Obasiliasfilosofos Warrior rabbi? Awesome!

[anubis2814]

I love your history vids, you don't have to pull bullshit like say zeitgeist, you actually did your research and don't have to make stuff up.

[TaylorX04]

@anubis2814 Haha, don't get me started on Zeitgeist. It drives me nuts that people fall for that stuff, and for The God Who Wasn't There, when the correlations are extremely thin, if not outright lies at times. There are very good reasons for doubting the historicity of Jesus, but I rarely find any books or videos on it that know how to research and use restraint.

[gekritzl]

@TaylorX04 - I'm a fan of your Jesus Left the Building series. I wonder why you're not fond of Zeitgeist (the religion part, anyway). Have you done your research on Mithras, Horus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Prometheus? There is extensive, scholarly work (see Cumont, Pörtner, Morford, and Roger Beck for Mithraism, for example). Even the Catholic Encyclopedia has an extensive article on Mithraism, showing the similarities to Jesus. Similarly with the other sun-gods / sons of god.

[TaylorX04]

@gekritzl Zeitgeist builds a case on similarities that are often of little real substance or even totally ignore the context of what the passage is really saying. Mithraism is perhaps the one myth among those that I've done the most research into, and every credible Mithraic scholar will tell you that the connections to Christianity are really overblown. One great example is that few of those mythicists will tell you that Mithras was actually born of rock in the stories, not from a virgin.

[gekritzl]

@TaylorX04 - While the "virgin birth" is only a small part of the Mithra similarities; these researchers have found it to be true: Cumont, Campbell, Robertson, Maitland, Nabarz (more)

Check out Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (1972). The article by Beck (in English) is compelling.

Other similarities between "Jesus" and the real son of god ,:-) Mithras, are rampant. The connections are not "overblown." Mithraic belief first landed in Roman empire -- where, to you know?



[gekritzl]

@TaylorX04 - Oh, I should have given you more explanation. The virgin mother of Mithra was Anahita; and yes, he was born in a cave, much like Jesus was born in a "manger." Shepherds, bearing gifts, witnessed the birth of Mithra.

[RDJim]

"historicity"

I like that word.

[Hooya2]

Haha I caught a mistake! At 4:20-25, you say the women run away from the risen Jesus and say nothing to anyone, but in fact the risen Jesus doesn't even appear until 16:9; the original manuscripts of Mark end with the women running away from the empty tomb.

[TaylorX04]

@Hooya2 You're right! They ran away from "a young man dressed in a white robe", not Jesus. Thanks for pointing that out.

[petefentonp]

Well researched and put together.

[colonelkentucky81]

Could the word "brother" be referring to something than actual kinship? My good friend Ron is my "brother" but he's not related to me.

[TaylorX04]

@colonelkentucky81 It can and has been used that way even in Paul's own letters (he frequently refers to his "brothers in Christ", for example). However, I don't know that such an interpretation could work in the case of a statement like "James, the brother of the Lord". Usually that does denote kinship. There are differing views on who James is, and I will get to one of them in the next video.

[WolfriksWorld]

Taylor, if you're ever in London, give me a call. Beers are on me! :)

[macnutz]

Huge thank you for the effort that went into this very informative piece. I look forward to the rest of this series.

[dioseolo]

Man, this is so gonna help me when debating :D