The Evidence for the Existence of Jesus (part 2 of 4)

[Draugh39]

5) Celcus talk about a person called Jesus. Jesus was a pretty common name among Jews at that time. So if you think that the Jesus Celcus is talking about is the actual Jesus in the Bible. Then that Jesus was NOT born of a virgin, didn't perform miracles and was not the son of a god!

If you on the other hand claim that Jesus did do all these things then you can't use Celcus as confirmation as Celcus are NOT talking about a person that agrees with the Biblical description!

[Draugh39]

4) Pliny Secundus doesn't mention Jesus at all either. He mentions Christians. To conclude that this means that Jesus actually existed is no more correct than to state that Odin existed because we know that there are people that believed in Odin. It is a non sequitur logical fallacy.

[angelawright70]

if you dont believe just study on near death experiences its something out there and if you never died before dont gamble with your life

[MrPurpose79]

Notice Christians have to believe that Jesus performed miracles to believe he was the son of god, but why aren't any of these miracles something like moving a mountain?

Instead they are all miracles that we are getting close to doing as humans, what does that say about Jesus, think about it. We will be able to turn water into wine one day, so Jesus is debunked.

[UNFFwildcard]

@MrPurpose79

lol. So you're suggesting that we'll be able to create the carbon atoms necessary for ethanol using nothing but oxygen and hydrogen (not to mention the other complicated molecules present in wine)? By your standards, moving a mountain would be a less impressive feat since we can already do that (in theory). Besides, just because we can do something today that took a miracle in the past doesn't make the miracle any less miraculous.

[Innuendoh]

@MrPurpose79 I have been dumbed down indeed for having read you comment... Off! OFF, to the big sity where your powers of articulation are needed!!! Yes? Pffffft! Just sayin' ;)

[MrPurpose79]

@Innuendoh I know because you have to assume your eternal dictator will always only do things you want, lol.

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

no i haven't heard the story of "Cannibal" mary

link , source?

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

"or how about the story of Cannibal Mary?"

cannibal Mary, your kidding right?

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

if christians had roman values, why did the romans persecuted them for 300 years?

Tacitus writes about christians that they are mischievous superstition

other roman historians write in a negative way about christianity, why would they do that if it promotes roman values?

I called you an idiot because you dismissed 40 min film as if its a joke.

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

"These videos are a joke."

your an idiot

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

"Give Caesar what is Caesar's" and pay your taxes is about as Roman as values can get."

wow one sentence out of the whole bible and suddenly jesus is promoting roman values.

maybe you should read what this paragraph is talking about in the first place.

roman values were unconstrained sex with whatever you can get your hands on, even with children

roman values were justice without mercy, mercy is something christianity introduced into the roman culture.

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

"There was an uprising and the rebel Jews (lead by a Jesus) refused to pay taxes. Jerusalem was sacked and the rebel Jesus was "replaced" with a peace loving Jesus who promoted Roman values. This was the creation of Josephus (Saul) and Titus Caesar."

I think i heard this once from some guy, he said Jesus was a terrorist. Where did you get this info so i can check it by myself.

I hardly believe this since christianity did not promote roman values.

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

"Have you actually done any research?"

you are asking me if i have done the research in the comments section of the movie which lasts 40 minutes and argues for his existence, have you even seen this video?

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

"What makes you think Christ existed? Have you actually done any research? "

last time i talked to a man who claimed jesus never existed the painful discussion ended with that i asked four questions on which he anwered to one of them and said that im thinking like a fundamentalist ---> for asking questions. I dont feel the need to go through that again.

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

its a statistic in which you belong. Evolution is a scientifically proved theory , Jesus existence is a historical fact. People who deny any of the two facts are on the same intellectual level.

"Advice - If you are going to say something it's best to try and use a bit of intelligence."

Wow never heard that one before, hm actually i did from a 15 year old.

Only stupid people think the other guy is stupid if they don't understand what he is saying.

[niinja2]

@TheDarvus

i must stop speeking to idiots who think they know anything

i heard somewhere that 40% of atheists in united kingdom think Jesus never existed.

do you know what is the difference between you and 50% of American Christians who think evolution is not true.

the difference is 10%, and no other difference at all between these two groups

[niinja2]

"People are easily led, but few have the guts or brains to question the masses."

what masses did apostoles followed when they were crucified? What did change their mind from being cowards that left Jesus to the ones that died in his name?

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

For all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction ,for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all Good works. 2Timothy 3:16,17 what is important is That Jesus fulfilled prophecy and at least in the culture of the Day, Men are noted probably because they are the heads of the Household and Joseph of Nazareth is a special case being the descendant of King David.

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

"what is important is That Jesus fulfilled prophecy and at least in the culture of the Day..."

According to the two lineages given in the Bible, Jesus could not have fulfilled the prophesy about inheriting the Throne of David. Both lines contains a person which is affected by a decree of God that excludes them from possibly inheriting. I have already showed this to you, it is in the Bible, why are you claiming that Jesus fulfilled prophesy?

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39  what decree there was no decree that eliminated the chance of the Messiah, both Matthew and Luke agree plainly, so painstakingly plainly say that and gives the lineages you can't miss it.

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

You really have to look up some information about the formation of the "synoptic gospels". Check the Wikipedia as a start. That Matthew and Luke agree on the lineage of Jesus is FALSE and has been known as a problem since the Dark Ages. The same is true about the Birth of Jesus and the resurrection etc. They do not agree and this is acknowledged by any serious theologian.

The reasons Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah is because he does NOT fulfil OT prophesy.

[TheJordan5056]

@Draugh39 oh yeah look at matthew chapter 1 its jesus geneology

[Draugh39]

@TheJordan5056

Matthew 1:1–17 does not agree with Luke 3:23–38, they can't even agree on the name for Joseph’s father (Mathew calls him Jacob and Luke calls him Heli).

Furthermore both lineages contain a person which makes it impossible for Jesus to be the Messiah.In Mathew it is Jeconiah, while in Luke it is Nathan. To this is added the claim that Joseph was not Jesus biological father, which by itself excludes him from being of David's House according to Jewish Law.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

Commentators Propose that Heli was the Greek form of Eli ,that Heli was the Father of Mary and thus father of Joseph is taken to mean Father in law . There is No record of two different people governing the same province at the same time and again Quirinius was Governor of SYRIA

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

Interestingly we do have the names of Mary's parents in the Protoevangelicum of James. They are Joachim and Anne and are the origin of the story of the "immaculate conception" which Catholic believes in.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 The Bible doesn't give the names of Mary's parents so we should be careful and we'll have to wait and see

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

Correct, the Bible doesn't mention Mary's parents so you have absolutely NO SUPPORT to claim her father was Heli then do you? Especially as it clearly is written that Joseph was the son of Heli. That is a very dishonest way of treating the text.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 I can't account for it by any way but by the translation of the Greek, we'll have to see.

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

The translationof the Greek does NOT support you in stating that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Quite the contrary, the way to read is exactly what all Bible translations state. (Luke 3:23-38) Gives a list of names all connected with the words

[name] "the son of" [name2] etc.

and in all these cases it means "son of" except in one case (where you want it to be "son-in-law")?!

That is a special pleading logical fallacy and you have nothing that backs that up.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 I said I'm no expert, but also in the old testament the Hebrew takes the word son to mean Descendant , Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar's biological Father was Nabonidus, Nabonidus was the Biological son of Nebuchadnezzar . Belshazzar was the Grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 Among the Hebrew people the terms for " father" and "son", "mother", and "daughter", "brother" and "sister", etc. were commonly used to include more distant relationship than than the words imply in English( see on Gen 29:12; Num 10:29 Deut 15:2 ; 1Chron 2: 17). Hence "son", for example, as used in the bible may denote relationship by natural birth( whether immediate or remote( , by adoption, by levirate marriage ( see on Deut 25:5-9), or simply by character( see 2 Tim 1:2).

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

And you are still missing the point. The same word is used throughout the lineage given by Luke. If you are now stating that this includes more distant relationships, then the list cannot be used to make a claim for the Throne of David which requires a DIRECT bloodline. Furthermore the list do not originate from Hebrew as the earliest manuscripts we have (P75 and P4) which the Bible is based on are in Koine Greek. Only the OT was in Hebrew and Aramaic.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 my point was that in both Koine Greek and old testament Hebrew the word can be used for direct bloodline and more distant relationships

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

No, you can't use you "interpretation" and still read correct Greek and it isn't written in Hebrew. The main problem is this, you use special pleading. You only attribute this to mean "son-in-law" (distant relations) in the case of Josef to Heli and NOT between the other names listed, even though it is the same word used, and you do this without any support at all. Mary has her parents listed in the Gospel of James which you are ignoring. This is dishonest.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 where are the names listed? show me it is written in Greek and Hebrew and it's not My interpretation

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

The names are listed in Luke 3:23-38, that text is in Greek. Why don't you check this scholarly articles:

R.P. Nettelhorst, "The genealogy of Jesus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31.2 (June 1988): 169-172

Note that the author clearly explain that this is his own personal view on how to solve the problem and that the sceptics view is the generally accepted, outside fundamentallist evangelical circles. Your intepretation contains a logical fallacy

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 where exactly do I look? and what is my error?

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

I gave you the whole reference look it up (I can't paste a 3 page article here). Your error is that you are giving different meaning to the same word in order to try to make it mean what you want, in one specific position in a long list. Read that article. It gives a way to get both lineages to fit Josef. However. they are unsupported apologetics and the author state is honest enough to state this.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 I did not twist it. And which article there are too many articles and no clue to Jesus genealogy and their titles or anything you said.

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

Just type:

R.P. Nettelhorst, "The genealogy of Jesus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31.2 (June 1988): 169-172

into Google. The articles are listed by page number. The one you want is pg 169 to 172, which is the 12th from the top. click on it to to get the "pdf"

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

The second problem is that if "son of" means "son-in-law" in the case of Joseph and Heli, then you would have the same situation for every place where "son of" is listed in Luke's Lineage –which is the everywhere. (If not then it is a case of "special pleading" which is a logical fallacy). That would mean that Jesus is not a descendent of David in that lineage and thus could not fulfil the Old Testament prophesy of inheriting David's throne.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 no it doesn't take away from Joseph's being descendant of King David

the account unmistakably shows on both Gospels that Joseph is King Davids descendant

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

You are utterly wrong. The lineage of Matthew (1:11) include "Jeconiah". According to God (Jeremiah 22:28 - 30)

[30] "Thus saith the LORD: Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

So God himself has banned anyone of Jeconiah lineage to ever inherit David's throne. Thus Jesus can never inherit through that line.

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

That leaves the line of Luke. Note, in order to be able to inherit the Kingdom you have to be a blood relative of David. But it isn't just that: In (1 Chronicles 28:5-7) as well as other places it is clearly spelled out that God promises that the line shall continue through Solomon (see also 2 Samuel 7:14-15). That means that the lineage must include Solomon or God lied. Luke's lineage (3:31) goes through Nathan not Solomon. Jesus can't inherit via that one either.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 This is another Nathan who must be of David's lineage not Nathan the Prophet

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

"Quirinius was Governor of SYRIA"

As it is written in Luke 2:2

"This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria."

That places the census at 6/7 CE and the time of Jesus birth at the same year as is clear from the rest of Luke 2. This happened 10 years after the death of King Herod. However Matthew 2 lists Jesus as being Born while Herod was still alive.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 Both Matthew and Luke clearly state the events took place when Herod Was alive

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

Yes they state events that happened during that time but I talk about the birth. Luke is VERY specific. Luke 2:1-5. Mary was pregnant and on the way to Bethlehem with Joseph for Quirinius Census. That census was 6/7 CE. There was no census during Herod that required this. The census of Augustus in 8 BCE was for Roman citizens only and would not have affected Joseph as he could not have been a Roman citizen.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 There was a census for all people during the reign of Augustus as emperor of the Roman Empire and Herod the Great as king of Israel because There are Reports of Herod killing his own sons and Augustus heard of It and said It is better to Be Herod's pig Than Herod's son. Again If your a ruler You've got to know the population to understand how many people you've got to govern citizen or not. Matthew and Luke testify to the event.

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

No you are wrong!

Augustus is known to have taken a census of Roman citizens at least three times, in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE. Note they were for ROMAN CITIZENS ONLY. Joseph was obviously NOT a Roman Citizen and would never have been included in any of these.

The Census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria was a taxation census and included everyone in that region that paid tax and that would have affected Joseph. Luke place Jesus birth at 6/7 CE.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 Luke 2 mentions that The Birth happened when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. HE also lived then during Augustus's reign this doesn't signify a different time period

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

For the reason stated before Augustus Census was 8 BCE and for Romans ONLY. Furthermore no one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history, this makes it highly unlikely that Quirinius was Governor during Herod and there is no historical evidence to back that either.

[Draugh39]

The Testimonium Flavianum is not noted anywhere until the 4th century. It was first referred to by Eusebius, writing in about 324. The truthfulness of Eusebius is however seriously in doubt.

Jacob Burckhardt (19th century cultural historian) dismissed Eusebius as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".

You also mentioned Jesus Birth record: That's great, give the reference. It might illuminate the contradiction in the Bible between Mathew and Luke's accounts.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 what contradictions? there's no contradiction at least that i know of please point what you believe it is.

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

Matthew gives Jesus birth at the time of King Herrod who died 4BCE. Luke gives it during the Census of Quirinius (that was 6/7 CE) so they don't agree at all. The two lineages given for Jesus (Luke 3:23–38) and (Matthew 1:1–17) don't agree either.

[TheCuppycakedelight5]

@Draugh39 no both agree that the census happened during the reign of roman Emperor Augustus, and Herod the great lived and died also during Augustus's reign. The lineages don't contradict ,but add details not given in Matthew. I say it with respect.

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

Sorry but you are utterly wrong.

The census during Augustus was for Roman Citizens only. Joseph was not a Roman citizen and would not have been subjected to that census.

The Census by Quirinius is mentioned by Josaphus:

"Quirinius made an account of Archelaus' property and finished conducting the census, which happened in the thirty-seventh year after Caesar's defeat of Antony at Actium (that was 31 BCE). This place the Census between 6/7 CE.

[Draugh39]

@TheCuppycakedelight5

"The lineages don't contradict ,but add details not given in Matthew."

The lineages do contradic!

(Matthew 1:15b-16a):

"Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph..."

(Luke 3:23b):

"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat..."

So Luke state that Joseph was the "son of Heli" while Matthew states "Jacob [was] the father of Joseph". That is a contradiction

[matondia]

Christ is a title given to Greek ethnic priest (like Appolonius of tyanna 3AD)!! IF Christ was Jewish shouldn't be called a Rabbi? Just wondering!

[Cartoonistforjesus]

Even if I was a none believer the bible itself would be proof enough for me to believe . Consider that all of the authors of the new testament were put to death . They knew that they would be put to death . They knew that almost all of the converts would be put to death . So in order to not believe the BIBLE you have to believe that all the authors of the new testament were suicidal AND preventative mass murderers as thousands and thousands of first Christians were out to death

[IDH77]

Excellent! 5 stars!

[sKoTyo]

This is crazy. Do ppl not use their logic. Ofcourse Jesus existed. Who ever started this whole arguement is biased in their logic beyond words. LOOK, he lived, just the same as other historical ppl

[thmsjordan]

I think the main problem I have with your assertions here is that these men are proving that Jesus existed and worked miracles etc. and this isn't true. Josephus for example was reporting what the Christians were claiming. He is not bearing witness to it himself. That is a crucial difference. We know well that there were early Christians and that they made these claims. It doesn't prove the existence of the person of Jesus. It only shows that they were around and this is what they believed.

[athlete117]

Right, but it's by comparing extra-Biblical source with the Gospels and other books of the New testament that establish there credibility. The passage that refers to Christ's brother, James, is important, for example, because we have the mention of james in Paul's writing, where he documents that Christ appeared to James physically, as he did hundreds of other eye witnesses, and before this event, James did not believe his brother was the Christ (cont)

[athlete117]

but he devoted himself to Christ afterwards, leading to his eventual death by persectuion. You have to understand that at that time, this is remarkably significant because first century Jews had every reason to reject Jesus as the Christ. Paul himself, was converted by the physical appearence of Christ, and there is simply no reason why somebody like Paul, whose writings are established as early as AD 60 should have converted to Christianity were it not for Christ proving Himself to him.

[athlete117]

At this point, I think it's really absurd for people to even attempt to argue that Christ never existed. You'd have to ignore all the historical evidence external to the Bible, and all the books of the New testament that were written and in wide circulation before the close of the first century. You'd have to invent a conspiracy of such massive proportions, it would be more implausible than the miracles themselves.

[Timmay123456789]

@athlete117

it wouldnt be a conspiracy, but more of a game of broken telephone. The evidence just isn't reliable

[Draugh39]

@athlete117

There is no contemporary evidence at all that Jesus existed. The claims made in this video doesn't show this. They mostly show that CHRISTIANS existed but they do not at all show that Jesus did. The only one that actually mentions Jesus is Josephus and that passage is not likely to be true at all. The first parson making any reference to it was Eusebius and he was a VERY dishonest historian (he even admits that himself in writing!)

[RedPaintedAvarice]

Why all the fighting all the time?

[MopDMTBARTL]

nobody gets it. Everything in the Universe is energy. God / Satan is just energy. The good is the positive energy. The bad is the negative energy. it's up to us to take Jesus's message (may just been a story- 4 teachings / never existed) &2 abide by it-by giving off positive energy (love)the way HE DID when he WAS here on earth in the flesh! That is why we feel he is God. Because he is perfect. Always giving off positive energy 4 others &nature! 4 more knowledge go here:

truthknowledge. Com

[distressed7]

It is to me not what the church was according to the doctrinal hypocrites of today. It what the church wasn't. Ex. Emperor Justinian and his circus prostitute wife Theodora severally criticized the doctrine of the then British Church around 553 B.C. and that was REINCARNATION. It took 3 more Ecumenical Councils to censure and stamp out "a foreign superstition" that being the Druidic and the Essenic doctrines of mystics. Theodora? well, she didn't like it because it taught all humans are equal.

[fartagent]

Dumbasses by the masses!

[nebulajr]

There are a handfull of people that mention Christianity and hundreds of scholars, historians, philosophers, Satirists, poets, and teachers that do not mention ONE thing.

[poetsonghotmail]

Do you expect that everyone from the person writing poetry to the and plays to a teacher of math should have mentioned Jesus?

[nebulajr]

How many times has Jesus been mentioned in posts on this video alone? It's been 1,976 years after Jesus' death and there are more people that write about him than when he was actually alive. If Jesus did the things that the Bible says he did, there would be an unbelievable amount of evidence or documentation.

[poetsonghotmail]

Don't forget that most historical documents that you would expect to find him mentioned in were distroyed.

Also, the Jews were oral culture at this time. Better than talking about Jesus the people who met him were dying for him.

[nebulajr]

poetsonghotmail said,

"Don't forget that most historical documents that you would expect to find him mentioned in were distroyed."

Where did you get this information?

Is this your idea of what happened? Please give me a source so I can be enlightened.

[kingmike40]

That blows my mind. How some mortal can do any good for a all powerful god or good for himself by dying for him. I think what you mean is the people were dying because of their beliefs. If the documents that prove christ existed were destroyed than how do you know if they existed at all?

[poetsonghotmail]

They were dying because they believed Christ was the son of God. As for all evidence being distroyed, we having the gospels, church writing and the sources in this video which are much than for any similar historical figure.

If he did not exist these people claiming to know him, dying because they believed he was God is strange at least.

[kingmike40]

Heaven's Gate was a religion were people died because of their beliefs. Does that make their beliefs true? Religions and cults around the world for the past 5000+ years killed people. That doesn't make their beliefs valid. Just stupid.

[poetsonghotmail]

You are missing the point. They would have known for a fact whether or not there was a Jesus. They would not have died for a non-existent person.

[kingmike40]

You are missing the point. People died for non-existing all thru history. Nothing new with jesus. People are easily led, but few have the guts or brains to question the masses.

[poetsonghotmail]

Well you can't say these people lacked guts or that they were following the masses. People dye for things that is true but the apostles were killed and they would have known for a fact whether or not he lived.

[SPAGHETTIMONSTER1]

@kingmike40 , I wonder how many Atheist would say Jesus existed under threat of torture and death?

[nebulajr]

Pliny mentions Christians in letters to Trajan (Emeror). Pliny's letters were claimed to be found by a 15th century Monk Joannes Iucundus, and the originals got "lost" a couple of years after the translation. How convenient.

[nebulajr]

Pliny the Younger was a Senator and Lawyer. Pliny studied with Tacitus and never metions Christ until around 3 years prior to his own death. (76 years after Jesus' death)

[kingmike40]

Pliny the Elder lived during the supposed time of jesus and wrote about history of the region but never mentioned jesus.

[nebulajr]

Thats right. I am taliking about Pliny the younger. He mentions Christions but never a man named Jesus Christ. Christians like to use PTY for proof of Jesus' existance. It's like me writing about a group of kids that believe in the Easter Bunny.

[ogirv101]

"I am taliking about Pliny the younger. He mentions Christions but never a man named Jesus Christ"

A close friend of Pliny, and a greater historian named Tacitus did write about him though. I don't really see what you're arguing about, Pliny isn't the only source, did you see the video earlier?

[nebulajr]

ogirv101,

Tacitus writes in Annals, Nero fastened the guilt (for the burning of Rome) and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations called Christians by the populous. Christians from whom the name had its origins suffered extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our Procurators Pontius Pilate.

[nebulajr]

ogirv101,

No early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero. It wasnt until the 5th century that Tacitus was quoted by Christian apologists.

[nebulajr]

ogirv101,

There are no original copies of Annals. The only surviving copy is in a library in Italy and was written by Monks around the 11th century. Upon deep examination, the documents were found to have erasures. The word Chrestianos was altered to read Christianos.

[nebulajr]

"The Christ" was a title given to many, it was not a name of someone. If Jesus Christ were a living historical human being, there would be way more evidence and these videos wouldn't have to be made. (apologetics all over again)

[guarddog019]

this guy stutters a lot

[kingmike40]

Show me something that was written at the time of the life of jesus. He was supposedly born of a virgin meaning without sex. He walked on water, changed water to wine, and so on, but none of these events are recorded at the time of his supposed life only after. The timeline for christ doesn't match history. Jesus was supposedly born in the year 1 and lived about 33 years. The bible gives dates of King Herod and john the baptist don't match what the bible states.

[poetsonghotmail]

We do not believe that he was born in year and the Bible does not state that as the date of his birth. The calendar we use is based on an estimate of when he was born and we now have better information.

I would challenge you to find any other prophet, teacher or popular leader from this time period with more documented evidence.

[kingmike40]

You have better information about the son of a all mighty god who inspired the bible. So I guess either you are better than god or the bible is a work of fiction by mere men. Bible does state that christ was born when Herod was king. We know when Herod existed so it isn't a stretch to find something on the existences of a son of a god coming to earth.

[poetsonghotmail]

Flavius Josephus said Herod died shortly after an eclipse of the moon and there are few date when this might have happened.

Most estimate Christ's birth before the year 4 BC.

Do you know of any other prophet, teacher or popular leader with more documented evidence?

[kingmike40]

What evidence do you have for christ? There is probably about the same amount for prophet Mohammed. Teachers could be from greece dating back much farther then christ. Popular leader could be kings, Alexander the Great. Which lived much early than christ. You can look up names. You need a history lesson.

[ogirv101]

Jesus had more evidence than Alexander and Muhamad. Jesus is especially special, the gospels were written 30-40 years after his death, including many more secular sources near that time frame. That is 4 decades, Alexander's biography were written 400 years later, so what do you think?

[kingmike40]

Alexander the Great was recorded while living and that is what was probably used for the biography on such documents were written at the time that christ lived. Only after and totally based on word of mouth. One reason christ is a big religion is because the roman empire shoved the religion down the throats of its citizens. Old habits die hard.

[ogirv101]

"Alexander the Great was recorded while living"

No he wasn't, everything about him was passed down orally until they finally wrote his biography, the same thing happened about jesus. What happened to Jesus was passed down orally, then you ask how is it reliable if it was passed down orally? well there is a social mechanism that acts that doesn't disrupt the information of Jesus, especially considering jewish law and their hate for lies.

[distressed7]

I guess that is why the Christian Inquisition burned 12K copies of the Talmud containing damaging information of the person of Christ. Not too mention even burning certain now irretrievable copies of the Old Testament. It is more than amazing to see how the church lives in denial re: Its hateful fear of truth. Pope BenedictXIII-went for a Latin treatise MAR JESU and then hunted down another dangerous document, THE BOOK OF ELXAI. LOL! we have scant accounts of Christ, because of the "church"!

[ogirv101]

Yes the Bible does mention that, but the Bible also mentioned a star, and that star is calculated to be 3 BCE, so I think the person above has more validity, also jesus wasn't born in december.

[kingmike40]

What are your sources for the star at 3 BCE? The december date was stolen from the pagan religions.

[regelemihai]

Excellent and brillaint videos, my friend.

Just note, though; I got into a debate with a skeptic, and he pointed out to a famous debate that between Justin Martyr and Tryphon. Tryphon, allegedly, claims Jesus is a myth as a person, and since Justin doesn't reference The testimonium Flavianum to counter that claim, it renders Josephuse's accounts "false" and "forged".

I couldn't seem to find a satasfying answer :(

[UNFFwildcard]

Tyvm. I wouldn't be able to answer your question thought. If anything, I would check to see the estimated dates between Justin and Josephus & see if he didn't cite them because the testimony didn't exist yet. As well, I would advice that Josephus, in both the forged & unforged accounts, both cite Jesus. One only is modified to serve a purpose other than for jesus's historicity.

As well, I should advice you that 'evidence from silence' is very unreliable supporting evidence for that claim.

[regelemihai]

Why is it evidence from silence if he can cite the source and the specific line?

I just hate it when I reach a dead end like without being able to counter it :P

Never mind, thanks for your answer :)