I watched your video. Osiris was killed by his brother, and chopped in fourteen parts. Osiris was given the status of a god of the underworld. Osiris did not have all his parts, Osiris' return to life was not a ressurection but a zombification. The Egyptians did not rise from the dead, seperate entities of their personality such as Ba and Ka continue to hover about his body. This is nothing like biblical doctrine on Ressurection.
As directly stated, Osiris was raised from the dead and brushed the dirt off from his body. Osiris' resurrected body was described as being in emmaculately good condition. Jesus is the zombie because when he came back to life he walked around with the bloody wounds that killed him like something out of a horror flick. Osiris was resurrected, THEN he went to rule the Otherworld, same as Jesus. Jesus was resurrected and then was taken to the Otherworld. Jesus is not on Earth either.
And in case you didn't notice, the text says Osiris was carried to heaven, not the underworld. There is much more to the story than what you're reading on your slanted Christian websites.
You mean it says in Pyramid Texts, Utterance 373 that Osiris goes to Heaven? Osiris was scattered in fourteen peices, Isis went in to the underworld to unite her husband's body. Osiris was never back to his original self. You are not mentioning any of that, maybe it does not fit in with what you want to portray?
+"You mean it says in Pyramid Texts, Utterance 373 that Osiris goes to Heaven?"+
Did you not read it? "...takes thee(Osiris) to HEAVEN". That is just one of numerous passages descring Osiris' ascension to Heaven. You either are not paying attention or you're blocking out what you're reading because you're uncomfortable with the facts. I told you before, there is alot more to the Osiris story than what you get from your Christian websites. They deliberately lie and cover up the similarities.
Osiris, Horus and Isis may of been real people, but there is no credible historial evidence that can confirm that Osiris wand Isis were real people. Jesus is a relatively recent historical figure, he was born when Quirinius was govoner of Syria, when Augustus was emperor of Rone, we know a lot about Augustus, he died when Pontius Pilate was Roman govener of Judea, a figure we can easily find independently, we have witnesses outside the Bible that speak of Jesus.
We have concrete historical accounts of Jesus, the Gospels. Jesus does not fit in to the mythic figures of these other figures. You have very conrcrete individuals examples in Peter, Paul, John, James, these first Christians who went to the ends of the world, who went to their deaths proclaiming the truth of what they had seen, heard in Jesus Christ.
You do not have missionaries of Horus, Osiris, or Isis. Horus, Osiris and Isis are not particular figures who's stories people need to know, Horus, Osiris and Isis are generic mythic figures. But you do have missionaries of Jesus, that signals a difference in the systems.
You also say the beginning of your video that original Hebrew was in Sheol. I asked about it and found this infomation from somebody so I am not responsible for finding this infomation.
The only question about the afterlife is exactly how conscious a person was in Sheol. The Bible contradicts as to whether souls in Sheol just sleep forever with no memory of their life or whether they are semi-conscious, listless spirits. But there was no question that everyone goes to Sheol forever when they die, not heaven or hell. Those are concepts the Jews copied from others.
Osiris was a myth, he was not ressurected. Belief in Jesus' Ressurection refers to a historical person, the legends of pagan deities have to be accepted without any proof.
There is no historical proof of Jesus, and Osiris is believed by many scholars to have been a real person. You cannot provide one single, solitary historical mention of Jesus by anyone who'd ever actually met him to verify his existence. There is more reason to believe in the older, more original Osiris than a character who is just a copy of Osiris.
Egyptologist Kurt Sethe and archaeologist Emile Amelineau posit Osiris/Ausar as a real person, just to name a couple. That Ausar was a real king is a common view.
Kurt Sethe and Emily Amelineau have been dead a long time, God rest their souls. That isn't very good evidence. I know of several athiest historians who accept historicity of Jesus. The divinity of Jesus is something that is debated, because that takes faith, but the historicity of Jesus is something that is accept among historians. If you do not believe Jesus was a historial person, you are not even on the fringe, you are beyond that.
Sethe's work on Ausar is still used to this day. I gave you two names I could immediately think of off the top of my head. There is no reason for me to waste time trying to list every scholar by name who's ever proposed Ausar was a real person. It's a common belief. As for an historical Jesus, I let the lack of evidence speak for itself.
Give me the name of a credible historian who says the list of names that mention Jesus, 42, are all forgeries? And you did not answer my question before, do you think Emperor Tiberius did not exist as a historical person?
You're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say all 42 were forgeries, I said they were a mixed bag of 1)forgeries, 2) false citations that don't actually mention Jesus, and 3)people long after Jesus who'd never met him and are just referring to the myths. We have images, writings and relatives for Caesar, so yes, I think he was an historical person. Now the real question is, do you have ANY of these things for Jesus? If not, then he does not compare with Caesar historically.
What historians say the 42 references to Jesus are forgeries or false citations? So you are willing to accept the historicity of Caesor, one of the sources that mentions Caesor, Appian was second century, over 150 years after Ceasor's death are fine to you, but not the Gospels written in the first century and all the other people that mention Jesus? You are selective because you have a bias against Christianity.
A. N. Sherwin-White points out in 'Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament.' Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened.
For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers.
So in order to mispresent Caesar as having no more evidence than Jesus, you're ignoring the fact that we have images and writings for Caesar by people who met him, indicating that he existed? You're just going to ignore that?
Livy does a biography of Caesar, another mention of Caesar I believe is in the Bible in Luke 2:1, other mentions of Caesar in letters by Cicero, Gallic Wars by Caesar, and Appian's biography of Caesar written over 150 years after Caesar's death. Do you trust the Biblical source for Caesar?
Livy's book on Caesar have not survived but there are excerpts.
All of it is good evidence for Ceasar, and historians believe Caesar was a historical person, but there is far less evidence for Caesar than what exists for Jesus.
+"there is far less evidence for Caesar than what exists for Jesus."+
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Caesar had relatives. We have images of Caesar made of him DURING HIS LIFETIME. We have correspondence to and FROM CAESAR HIMSELF. Jesus left no wives, no children, no writings, no images, and despite the Bible saying he was widely famous, we cannot find a single historical mention of him anywhere by anyone that had ever actually met him or heard of his supposed miracles,
If you are going to pretend that mentions of the Jesus myth a hundred years later by people chronologically incapable of verifying anything is more evidence than writings from a person themself and images made by people who actually met them at the time, then you are just deluding yourself at this point and there's not much else I can say to you about it.
Pliny the Younger, Tacitius, Suetonius, Jospehus and Thallus all write about Jesus, Jesus' miracles and/or Christianity in the first century, but even the historians and others that I listed who talked about Jesus 50 or 100 years later, they are considered as historical and valuble.
Look at my comments from historian A N Sherwin White. Historians consider the two early biographies about Alexander the Great by Arrian and Plutarch to be historically even though they were written 400 years after Alexander's death and historians consider them to be trustworthy.
You are not answering these two questions. Do you consider Emper Tiberius a historical person? And do you consider the Biblical reference to Caesar to be accurate?
Who are relatives of Caesar? Of course Jesus would not have a wife, because he was celibate, so he would have no children either. He left no writings because in ancient society a teacher would not write his work, he had scribes to do it for him, and that is like Matthew writing the Gospel.
When you look for evidence for a historical person, you go to the primary source documents, for Jesus you go to the Gospels. You do not go to later, less reliable perhaps secondary sources, like the historians and others I listed commenting on Jesus and Christianity. Although valuble. Look up 'Historical Method.'
You're arguing as though you don't even understand your own argument. There is no more primary a source document than things written by the person themself. We have writings from Caesar himself, as well as writing to Caesar from people who knew him. So even by your own criterion Caesar blows Jesus away in terms of historicity. You are defeating your own argument.
The Gospels contain direct and indirect eywitness testimony. The Gospels have stood the test of time and they are the primary documents that you should be looking at, not always looking for outside secondary resources, which are valuble but less reliable. The Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus, we have thousands of copies + manuscripts today, there is an academic consensus that the Bible is historically accurate and that miracle working was part of construction of Jesus.
People, places, events in the Gospels line up with other historical recordings of the day. And archeology has helped to confirm this. There is no historical evidence for contemporaries of the authors of the Gospels, to discredit or critisize the Gospels for being innacurate. The authors of the Gospels had nothing to gain by misrepresenting the truth and actually put their lives at risk.
Biographers were educated and practiced in oral tradition which enabled memorization until content could be written. Everything is in favour of the Gospels being accurate and trustworthy.
You don't mind Caesar being a historical person because Caesar isn't really relevent to today, but Jesus is, and that is you are biased.
You still don't seem to understand that teachers like Jesus in ancient society would of never wrote their own books. Jesus' words are in the Gospels.
And once again you are desparately just skipping over and ignoring that we have primary source documents for the Caesars(writings from Caesar himself) as well as images of him made by living eyewitnesses. You constantly ignore this to try to pretend there's no more evidence for Caesar than there is for Jesus, when that clearly isn't true. Like I said before, you are deluding yourself and ignoring the facts so there's nothing else for me to say to you on it.
Since when did the historical method work like this: Only real if they have written their own texts. It does not work like that. Luke is seen as a top historian by modern historians. We can trust the Gospels.
Luke says in (Luke 1:3) that he is writing an ''orderly account'' after investigating the events. Luke was an educated man, he was a doctor. Luke references hundreds of people and places. If you are going to reference world history and you have historical innacuraies this gives many critics opportunies for testing accuracy. Luke references Pontius Pilate (Luke 3 v 1; Luke 13 v 1, Luke 23 v 1, 3, etc), Herod the Great, Bernice (Luke 1 v 5; Luke 25 v 13; Luke 26 v 30) and so on.
There was a skeptical archelogist called Sir William Ramsey and he went to Asia Minor to physically find evidence to refute the Gospel of Luke. After years of field study Sir William Ramsey reversed his view.
''Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.'' Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.
You believing that "Luke"(or whoever ACTUALLY wrote Luke) is regarded as some great historian is humorous. Do you have anything to say that isn't cut and pasted falsehoods from some Christian website?
Why don't you try reading the Gospel of Luke, and see the people, places, events that are recorded, and see how those same people, places and events are recorded in history outside the Gospel of Luke through extra biblical historical records and archeology.
I've read Luke as well as all the other gospels. Luke is as fictional as the rest. The gospel of Luke is filled with dialogues quoted by Luke that he'd have no historical way of quoting because there was no apostle or anyone else around to hear them, like Mary's conversation with the angel Gabriel and Zacharias' conversation with his wife before Jesus was even born. Luke is not an "historian" recording history. He's a storyteller narrating a story/myth with his characters.
Luke carefully investigated the claims and would of had a number of resources open to him including eyewitnesses such as Peter, and other Apostles and the Jerusulem Archives (e.g., the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:22-29), Luke would of had to do research to get his infomation. Luke also said he was creating a chronological account.
You're not paying attention. How could Peter or any of the apostles be eyewitnesses to conversations that happened before the apostles were chosen and before Jesus was even born? How exactly did Luke investigate these things and get quotes?
I did some research on your question and found this answer.
Presumably either Mary or others related those stories to the apostles and other disciples, and Luke says he made it his business to interview everyone still alive who witnessed these events, or anyone who had known those involved. I love him because he is a model historian, one of the best in ancient world.
John knew Mary particularly closely as he took Mary into his home and treated her as his own mother, and provided for her after Jesus' death, as Jesus had asked from the cross.
The apostles knew Jesus' Mother during the years Jesus was with them..and if in the company of Jesus, would you not, also, have chats with the mother of this remarkable man about His early life? Wouldn't you have wanted to know everything she could tell you?
And a couple of the apostles hung out with John the Baptist before Jesus called them. Remember that Mary spent time with Elizabeth, her cousin, for a few months before John's birth. Another family connection and information source. Elizabeth would have shared, as mothers do, with John when he was younger.
I am not interesting on continuing on this conversation.
I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking about knowing events, I'm talking about knowing quotes. Luke is not just saying the angel came to Elizabeth, he's quoting the conversation word for word. A quote can only come from a person who was there. Even if you try to make the unrealistic suggestion that Elizabeth quoted her conversations to Mary and the quotes were preserved verbatim for decade after decade until they got passed to "Luke", you're still left...
...with multiple conversations that aren't witnessed by anyone like Luke 22:41-45 where Jesus specifically seeks privacy because he didn't want the apostles to see what he did. The apostles never learn about this because Jesus didn't want them to and Jesus is immediately taken away and killed afterward without telling them.
Yet "Luke" is mysteriously able to quote Jesus' private words the whole time anyway and even give a detailed physical description of Jesus as though he was watching it with a hidden camera. "Luke" can do this because he's not recording history, he's narrating a myth. The characters in the myth say whatever Luke wants. This is why the quotes Luke gives for them contradict the quotes in other gospels. Now if you don't understand this, you need to do more study.
Myths and contradictions? I do not think so. Luke never claimed to have met Jesus but he said he carefully investigated the events and the Gospel's reliability as a reliable historical record are fact.
I don't think Horus ever existed as an actual man. There is a possibility that Ausar was a real person but I don't know whether he was or he wasn't. But since Jesus is just an imitation of Ausar, I find Ausar being a real person more likely than a character copied from Ausar being a real person.
Everybody is a copy of everybody else to you it seems. Nothing more than fabrication.
Here is a list of athiest historians who believe Jesus existed as a historical man, and reject that Jesus was a myth. Jesus as a historical person is a matter of historical fact and no matter what the modern historians own religious beliefs may be, the historicity of Jesus is certain.
Do not give me lists or supposed opinions. If you are going to claim that Jesus was an historical person, give me evidence of him in history. An image made of him by people who'd actually seen him, a group of descendants, a mention of him in a non-religious text. Something historical. But we both know you can't do this, so you will continue to dance in circles and wear out the right button on your mouse cutting and pasting meaningless apologetics.
I do not think modern historians don't rely on images of a person in ancient history to attain that they where in fact real people. 70 recent books were found in a cave in Jordan, inital carbon dating testing found that they were 2000 years old but archeologists can not be sure until more testing on these books are done, there is an image of Christ in there, + words, symbols of Jesus's crucifixion and Resurection of Jesus. If they are found to be 100% authentic, could be amazing find
What we have concerning Jesus is actually quite impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider critical thesis that other authors wrote pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we'd have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross.
(Clement of Rome's letter to the church in Corinth; 2 Clement whose author is unknown; the seven letters of Igantius; Polycarp's letter to the Philippians; The Martyrdom of Polycarp; Didache; the letter of Barnabas; The Shepherd of Hermas; Fragments of Papias; the letter of Diognetus;
the Apocalypse o Peter (not to be confused with the Nag Hammadi text of similar name); the Gospel of Peter; the Epistula Apostolorum; and the works of Justyn Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, and Melito of Sardis. The four heretical writings are the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection-see Habermas, Historical Jesus, 208-15.
Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within 150 years: Joseph, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion (highly regarded in a British Museum).
You've just regurgitated a list of irrelevant names. Aside from the problem of your list containing forgeries and false citations by people that didn't actually mention Jesus(Christian apologists just make this claim deceptively), being within 150 years of Jesus' supposed lifetime doesn't verify anything. None of these people ever met Jesus. They are merely referencing the biblical myths and believers of the Jesus myth. Historically, Jesus is a complete ghost.
There is evidence for Jesus, and that is what I pasted historical sources. Where are the historians and others speaking about Horsus or Osiris as historical people, not myths? The Gospels authors met Jesus, these people are seen as biographers who sat and wrote about the life of Jesus. Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Suetonius, Tacitius all wrote about Jesus in the first century.
You didn't post historical sources. You posted a bunch of names, some of whose supposed mentions of Jesus are forgeries, others of whom never mention Jesus at all. But since you are just repeating this list from a Christian website or video you don't know that the list is erroneous. The gospels were named after long after the fact. They were not written by the apostles they're named after and their writers never met Jesus. Biblical scholars themselves acknowledge this.
The names I posted are of the people that wrote about Jesus. All the names listed have written about Jesus, why else would I list them. You keep saying don't copy from Christian websites, the names of the people writing about Jesus that I listed are accepted by historians, what ever their own religious views, as valuble historical sources. The Gospels are seen by scholars as 1st century biographies, these are people that sat down and wrote about the life of Jesus.
You can call them "biographies", but scholars agree that they weren't written by anyone who'd ever actually met Jesus.
+"the names listed have written about Jesus, why else would I list them."+
Because you think they have since that's what Christian websites claim. You mentioned Suetonius. Provide the source and give the quote of Suetonius ever mentioning JESUS.
Scholars deem the Gospels to be biographies. Scholars do not agree that they were not written by the people that said they written the Gospels, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. I have given you evidence to believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were the four Gospel authors.
Here is the quote from Suetonius regarding Christian Jews and all the other quotes from historians and others regarding Jesus:
I don't see anywhere on that page where Suetonius speaks about "Christian Jews" or Jesus. Please cut and paste the exact quote where he mentions Jesus' name.
What does it say in the beginning of the Gospel of Luke? Luke does not say he was an eyewitness, but He is writing an "orderly account" of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth after "carefully investigating" the events in question (Luke 1:3). In other words, he is playing the part of investigative reporter and historian.
The strongest evidence attesting to Matthew’s authorship is the fact that four ancient sources, not counting the title itself, specifically attribute the Gospel to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus. Those sources are Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea, all significant leaders or writers in the early Christian community.
Moreover, the Gospel of Matthew was in wide circulation in the early church, and was circulated as an account written by Matthew, with no apparent question or contestation.
Why would the early church falsely attribute this Gospel (especially if it was indeed the first circulated) to Mark, a second-tier follower of Christ at best? Why not attribute it directly to Peter? If the early church wanted to utilize false attribution in order to enhance the manuscript's credibility, they could have done much better than Mark.
The Gospel of Peter is apocraphya. The apogrpahya are a group of books whose authenticity was questioned, where they were written when, and by whom they claimed. The Gospels contained in the New Testament were those whose pedigree was impecable.
What Church Fathers spread what false attributations? Look at my comment regarding the Gospel of Mark. It would not make any sense for the Church Fathers to attribute the Gospel of Mark to Mark if it were not true.
Let's take a look at Julius Caesar, one of Rome's most prominent figures. Caesar is well know for his military conquests. After his Gallic Wars, he made the famous statement, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Only five sources report his military conquests: writings by Caesar himself, Cicero, Livy, the Salona Decree, and Appian (and Appian was second century, more than 150 years after Julius died). Why didn't more writers mention his great military conquests?
Exactly. Writings from Caesar. That's what real people do. They leave things that show their existence. Writings, images, wives, children, contemporary mentions by eyewitnesses. There are none of these for Jesus. Which, of course, isn't surprising for people who don't exist.
I am not interesting in contuing have this conversation if you just harp on the same dogmatic nonsense. Jesus din't write his own books, or text because in ancient society a teacher would not write his own books, he would hire a scribe to do it as a he recited his teachings.
We know that the Roman empeor at the time of Jesus was the emperor Tiberius, how many historical sources do we have that even mention the Roman emperor Tiberius within 150 years of his life? We have 10 sources, within 150 years for the most powerful man on the planet, and one of those soruces is the Bible.
How many sources do we have for Jesus within 150 years of his death? We have 42 historical sources for Jesus, and Jesus was a Jewish peasent, a Jewish carpenter, not a emperor like Tiberius or a Roman general like Caesor, and yet we have more evidence for Jesus. This shows you the importance of Jesus. Do you believe Emperor Tiberius didn't exist?
You have to account for the start of Christianity, you have to explain the faith of of these authors of the Gospels, what would lead Jews as well as Gentiles to worship a crucified man on a cross naked? What would lead Jews to believe Jesus was their messiah when for all intents and purposes Jesus was a failed Messiah because Rome vanquished him on the cross.
The only explanation for worshipping Jesus was that God raised Jesus from the dead proving that Jesus was not a failed messiah but the eternal son in the flesh.
In 150 years his death, more non-Christian authors alone comment on Jesus than all of the sources who mentioned Julius Caesar's great military conquests within 150 years of his death.
The Vedas aren't that old compared to Kemetic and Sumerian texts. The early Vedic beliefs are likely based in part off of Kemetic systems for that matter.
Creation myth? As in creation of the world? I'm not sure what you mean, but if that's what you're talking about then I think Sumer's creation myth is dated older than Egypt's.
always gotta love Iannes for his informative clips
RebelAllianceMedia 8 hours ago
@RebelAllianceMedia
Thanks. This was the first video I ever made, so I thought it came out OK, all things considered.
Iannes33 1 hour ago
I watched your video. Osiris was killed by his brother, and chopped in fourteen parts. Osiris was given the status of a god of the underworld. Osiris did not have all his parts, Osiris' return to life was not a ressurection but a zombification. The Egyptians did not rise from the dead, seperate entities of their personality such as Ba and Ka continue to hover about his body. This is nothing like biblical doctrine on Ressurection.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
As directly stated, Osiris was raised from the dead and brushed the dirt off from his body. Osiris' resurrected body was described as being in emmaculately good condition. Jesus is the zombie because when he came back to life he walked around with the bloody wounds that killed him like something out of a horror flick. Osiris was resurrected, THEN he went to rule the Otherworld, same as Jesus. Jesus was resurrected and then was taken to the Otherworld. Jesus is not on Earth either.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@xtrashed
And in case you didn't notice, the text says Osiris was carried to heaven, not the underworld. There is much more to the story than what you're reading on your slanted Christian websites.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
You mean it says in Pyramid Texts, Utterance 373 that Osiris goes to Heaven? Osiris was scattered in fourteen peices, Isis went in to the underworld to unite her husband's body. Osiris was never back to his original self. You are not mentioning any of that, maybe it does not fit in with what you want to portray?
xtrashed 11 months ago
+"You mean it says in Pyramid Texts, Utterance 373 that Osiris goes to Heaven?"+
Did you not read it? "...takes thee(Osiris) to HEAVEN". That is just one of numerous passages descring Osiris' ascension to Heaven. You either are not paying attention or you're blocking out what you're reading because you're uncomfortable with the facts. I told you before, there is alot more to the Osiris story than what you get from your Christian websites. They deliberately lie and cover up the similarities.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Osiris, Horus and Isis may of been real people, but there is no credible historial evidence that can confirm that Osiris wand Isis were real people. Jesus is a relatively recent historical figure, he was born when Quirinius was govoner of Syria, when Augustus was emperor of Rone, we know a lot about Augustus, he died when Pontius Pilate was Roman govener of Judea, a figure we can easily find independently, we have witnesses outside the Bible that speak of Jesus.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
We have concrete historical accounts of Jesus, the Gospels. Jesus does not fit in to the mythic figures of these other figures. You have very conrcrete individuals examples in Peter, Paul, John, James, these first Christians who went to the ends of the world, who went to their deaths proclaiming the truth of what they had seen, heard in Jesus Christ.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
You do not have missionaries of Horus, Osiris, or Isis. Horus, Osiris and Isis are not particular figures who's stories people need to know, Horus, Osiris and Isis are generic mythic figures. But you do have missionaries of Jesus, that signals a difference in the systems.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
You also say the beginning of your video that original Hebrew was in Sheol. I asked about it and found this infomation from somebody so I am not responsible for finding this infomation.
jewishencyclopedia . com/view.jsp?artid=614&letter=S
It appears that the afterlife and the terminology of it was a open question with the Jews.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
The only question about the afterlife is exactly how conscious a person was in Sheol. The Bible contradicts as to whether souls in Sheol just sleep forever with no memory of their life or whether they are semi-conscious, listless spirits. But there was no question that everyone goes to Sheol forever when they die, not heaven or hell. Those are concepts the Jews copied from others.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Osiris was a myth, he was not ressurected. Belief in Jesus' Ressurection refers to a historical person, the legends of pagan deities have to be accepted without any proof.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
There is no historical proof of Jesus, and Osiris is believed by many scholars to have been a real person. You cannot provide one single, solitary historical mention of Jesus by anyone who'd ever actually met him to verify his existence. There is more reason to believe in the older, more original Osiris than a character who is just a copy of Osiris.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
What scholars/historians believe Osiris was a real person? What scholars/historians say Jesus was a copy of Osiris?
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
Egyptologist Kurt Sethe and archaeologist Emile Amelineau posit Osiris/Ausar as a real person, just to name a couple. That Ausar was a real king is a common view.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Kurt Sethe and Emily Amelineau have been dead a long time, God rest their souls. That isn't very good evidence. I know of several athiest historians who accept historicity of Jesus. The divinity of Jesus is something that is debated, because that takes faith, but the historicity of Jesus is something that is accept among historians. If you do not believe Jesus was a historial person, you are not even on the fringe, you are beyond that.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
Sethe's work on Ausar is still used to this day. I gave you two names I could immediately think of off the top of my head. There is no reason for me to waste time trying to list every scholar by name who's ever proposed Ausar was a real person. It's a common belief. As for an historical Jesus, I let the lack of evidence speak for itself.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
42 sources for Jesus is lack of evidence? I am not interested in continuing this discussion, bye bye.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
A list of forgeries, non-contemporaries, and false citations that do not actually mention Jesus is a lack of evidence, yes.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Give me the name of a credible historian who says the list of names that mention Jesus, 42, are all forgeries? And you did not answer my question before, do you think Emperor Tiberius did not exist as a historical person?
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
You're trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say all 42 were forgeries, I said they were a mixed bag of 1)forgeries, 2) false citations that don't actually mention Jesus, and 3)people long after Jesus who'd never met him and are just referring to the myths. We have images, writings and relatives for Caesar, so yes, I think he was an historical person. Now the real question is, do you have ANY of these things for Jesus? If not, then he does not compare with Caesar historically.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
What historians say the 42 references to Jesus are forgeries or false citations? So you are willing to accept the historicity of Caesor, one of the sources that mentions Caesor, Appian was second century, over 150 years after Ceasor's death are fine to you, but not the Gospels written in the first century and all the other people that mention Jesus? You are selective because you have a bias against Christianity.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
A. N. Sherwin-White points out in 'Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament.' Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers.
Think, all the Gospels were written before 70AD.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
So in order to mispresent Caesar as having no more evidence than Jesus, you're ignoring the fact that we have images and writings for Caesar by people who met him, indicating that he existed? You're just going to ignore that?
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Livy does a biography of Caesar, another mention of Caesar I believe is in the Bible in Luke 2:1, other mentions of Caesar in letters by Cicero, Gallic Wars by Caesar, and Appian's biography of Caesar written over 150 years after Caesar's death. Do you trust the Biblical source for Caesar?
Livy's book on Caesar have not survived but there are excerpts.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
All of it is good evidence for Ceasar, and historians believe Caesar was a historical person, but there is far less evidence for Caesar than what exists for Jesus.
xtrashed 11 months ago
1.
+"there is far less evidence for Caesar than what exists for Jesus."+
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Caesar had relatives. We have images of Caesar made of him DURING HIS LIFETIME. We have correspondence to and FROM CAESAR HIMSELF. Jesus left no wives, no children, no writings, no images, and despite the Bible saying he was widely famous, we cannot find a single historical mention of him anywhere by anyone that had ever actually met him or heard of his supposed miracles,
Iannes33 11 months ago
2.
If you are going to pretend that mentions of the Jesus myth a hundred years later by people chronologically incapable of verifying anything is more evidence than writings from a person themself and images made by people who actually met them at the time, then you are just deluding yourself at this point and there's not much else I can say to you about it.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
So you regard Appian's biography of Caesar over 150 years after Caesar's death to be unreliable? That goes against what historians have to say.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Pliny the Younger, Tacitius, Suetonius, Jospehus and Thallus all write about Jesus, Jesus' miracles and/or Christianity in the first century, but even the historians and others that I listed who talked about Jesus 50 or 100 years later, they are considered as historical and valuble.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Look at my comments from historian A N Sherwin White. Historians consider the two early biographies about Alexander the Great by Arrian and Plutarch to be historically even though they were written 400 years after Alexander's death and historians consider them to be trustworthy.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
You are not answering these two questions. Do you consider Emper Tiberius a historical person? And do you consider the Biblical reference to Caesar to be accurate?
Who are relatives of Caesar? Of course Jesus would not have a wife, because he was celibate, so he would have no children either. He left no writings because in ancient society a teacher would not write his work, he had scribes to do it for him, and that is like Matthew writing the Gospel.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
When you look for evidence for a historical person, you go to the primary source documents, for Jesus you go to the Gospels. You do not go to later, less reliable perhaps secondary sources, like the historians and others I listed commenting on Jesus and Christianity. Although valuble. Look up 'Historical Method.'
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
You're arguing as though you don't even understand your own argument. There is no more primary a source document than things written by the person themself. We have writings from Caesar himself, as well as writing to Caesar from people who knew him. So even by your own criterion Caesar blows Jesus away in terms of historicity. You are defeating your own argument.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
The Gospels contain direct and indirect eywitness testimony. The Gospels have stood the test of time and they are the primary documents that you should be looking at, not always looking for outside secondary resources, which are valuble but less reliable. The Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus, we have thousands of copies + manuscripts today, there is an academic consensus that the Bible is historically accurate and that miracle working was part of construction of Jesus.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
People, places, events in the Gospels line up with other historical recordings of the day. And archeology has helped to confirm this. There is no historical evidence for contemporaries of the authors of the Gospels, to discredit or critisize the Gospels for being innacurate. The authors of the Gospels had nothing to gain by misrepresenting the truth and actually put their lives at risk.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Biographers were educated and practiced in oral tradition which enabled memorization until content could be written. Everything is in favour of the Gospels being accurate and trustworthy.
You don't mind Caesar being a historical person because Caesar isn't really relevent to today, but Jesus is, and that is you are biased.
You still don't seem to understand that teachers like Jesus in ancient society would of never wrote their own books. Jesus' words are in the Gospels.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
I am not interested in carrying on this conversation, my advice to you, have an open mind.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
And once again you are desparately just skipping over and ignoring that we have primary source documents for the Caesars(writings from Caesar himself) as well as images of him made by living eyewitnesses. You constantly ignore this to try to pretend there's no more evidence for Caesar than there is for Jesus, when that clearly isn't true. Like I said before, you are deluding yourself and ignoring the facts so there's nothing else for me to say to you on it.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Since when did the historical method work like this: Only real if they have written their own texts. It does not work like that. Luke is seen as a top historian by modern historians. We can trust the Gospels.
xtrashed 11 months ago
+'We can trust the Gospels."+
Sure. We can trust that the gospels are remixes of earlier myths and riddled with contradictions. And "Luke" never met Jesus a day in his life.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Luke says in (Luke 1:3) that he is writing an ''orderly account'' after investigating the events. Luke was an educated man, he was a doctor. Luke references hundreds of people and places. If you are going to reference world history and you have historical innacuraies this gives many critics opportunies for testing accuracy. Luke references Pontius Pilate (Luke 3 v 1; Luke 13 v 1, Luke 23 v 1, 3, etc), Herod the Great, Bernice (Luke 1 v 5; Luke 25 v 13; Luke 26 v 30) and so on.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
There was a skeptical archelogist called Sir William Ramsey and he went to Asia Minor to physically find evidence to refute the Gospel of Luke. After years of field study Sir William Ramsey reversed his view.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
''Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.'' Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
You believing that "Luke"(or whoever ACTUALLY wrote Luke) is regarded as some great historian is humorous. Do you have anything to say that isn't cut and pasted falsehoods from some Christian website?
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Why don't you try reading the Gospel of Luke, and see the people, places, events that are recorded, and see how those same people, places and events are recorded in history outside the Gospel of Luke through extra biblical historical records and archeology.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
I've read Luke as well as all the other gospels. Luke is as fictional as the rest. The gospel of Luke is filled with dialogues quoted by Luke that he'd have no historical way of quoting because there was no apostle or anyone else around to hear them, like Mary's conversation with the angel Gabriel and Zacharias' conversation with his wife before Jesus was even born. Luke is not an "historian" recording history. He's a storyteller narrating a story/myth with his characters.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Luke carefully investigated the claims and would of had a number of resources open to him including eyewitnesses such as Peter, and other Apostles and the Jerusulem Archives (e.g., the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:22-29), Luke would of had to do research to get his infomation. Luke also said he was creating a chronological account.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
You're not paying attention. How could Peter or any of the apostles be eyewitnesses to conversations that happened before the apostles were chosen and before Jesus was even born? How exactly did Luke investigate these things and get quotes?
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
I did some research on your question and found this answer.
Presumably either Mary or others related those stories to the apostles and other disciples, and Luke says he made it his business to interview everyone still alive who witnessed these events, or anyone who had known those involved. I love him because he is a model historian, one of the best in ancient world.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
I also found this answer to your question:
John knew Mary particularly closely as he took Mary into his home and treated her as his own mother, and provided for her after Jesus' death, as Jesus had asked from the cross.
The apostles knew Jesus' Mother during the years Jesus was with them..and if in the company of Jesus, would you not, also, have chats with the mother of this remarkable man about His early life? Wouldn't you have wanted to know everything she could tell you?
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
And a couple of the apostles hung out with John the Baptist before Jesus called them. Remember that Mary spent time with Elizabeth, her cousin, for a few months before John's birth. Another family connection and information source. Elizabeth would have shared, as mothers do, with John when he was younger.
I am not interesting on continuing on this conversation.
xtrashed 11 months ago
1.
@xtrashed
I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking about knowing events, I'm talking about knowing quotes. Luke is not just saying the angel came to Elizabeth, he's quoting the conversation word for word. A quote can only come from a person who was there. Even if you try to make the unrealistic suggestion that Elizabeth quoted her conversations to Mary and the quotes were preserved verbatim for decade after decade until they got passed to "Luke", you're still left...
Iannes33 10 months ago
2.
...with multiple conversations that aren't witnessed by anyone like Luke 22:41-45 where Jesus specifically seeks privacy because he didn't want the apostles to see what he did. The apostles never learn about this because Jesus didn't want them to and Jesus is immediately taken away and killed afterward without telling them.
Iannes33 10 months ago
3.
Yet "Luke" is mysteriously able to quote Jesus' private words the whole time anyway and even give a detailed physical description of Jesus as though he was watching it with a hidden camera. "Luke" can do this because he's not recording history, he's narrating a myth. The characters in the myth say whatever Luke wants. This is why the quotes Luke gives for them contradict the quotes in other gospels. Now if you don't understand this, you need to do more study.
Iannes33 10 months ago
@Iannes33
I am not interested in continuing on this conversation.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Myths and contradictions? I do not think so. Luke never claimed to have met Jesus but he said he carefully investigated the events and the Gospel's reliability as a reliable historical record are fact.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Last thing, you consider Horus and Osiris historical people don't you, they did not write any of their own texts did they.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
I don't think Horus ever existed as an actual man. There is a possibility that Ausar was a real person but I don't know whether he was or he wasn't. But since Jesus is just an imitation of Ausar, I find Ausar being a real person more likely than a character copied from Ausar being a real person.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Everybody is a copy of everybody else to you it seems. Nothing more than fabrication.
Here is a list of athiest historians who believe Jesus existed as a historical man, and reject that Jesus was a myth. Jesus as a historical person is a matter of historical fact and no matter what the modern historians own religious beliefs may be, the historicity of Jesus is certain.
bede . org . uk/price1.htm
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
Do not give me lists or supposed opinions. If you are going to claim that Jesus was an historical person, give me evidence of him in history. An image made of him by people who'd actually seen him, a group of descendants, a mention of him in a non-religious text. Something historical. But we both know you can't do this, so you will continue to dance in circles and wear out the right button on your mouse cutting and pasting meaningless apologetics.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
I do not think modern historians don't rely on images of a person in ancient history to attain that they where in fact real people. 70 recent books were found in a cave in Jordan, inital carbon dating testing found that they were 2000 years old but archeologists can not be sure until more testing on these books are done, there is an image of Christ in there, + words, symbols of Jesus's crucifixion and Resurection of Jesus. If they are found to be 100% authentic, could be amazing find
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
What we have concerning Jesus is actually quite impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider critical thesis that other authors wrote pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we'd have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
(Clement of Rome's letter to the church in Corinth; 2 Clement whose author is unknown; the seven letters of Igantius; Polycarp's letter to the Philippians; The Martyrdom of Polycarp; Didache; the letter of Barnabas; The Shepherd of Hermas; Fragments of Papias; the letter of Diognetus;
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
the Apocalypse o Peter (not to be confused with the Nag Hammadi text of similar name); the Gospel of Peter; the Epistula Apostolorum; and the works of Justyn Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, and Melito of Sardis. The four heretical writings are the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection-see Habermas, Historical Jesus, 208-15.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within 150 years: Joseph, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion (highly regarded in a British Museum).
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death. (see Habermas, Historical Jesus, ch. 9).
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
You've just regurgitated a list of irrelevant names. Aside from the problem of your list containing forgeries and false citations by people that didn't actually mention Jesus(Christian apologists just make this claim deceptively), being within 150 years of Jesus' supposed lifetime doesn't verify anything. None of these people ever met Jesus. They are merely referencing the biblical myths and believers of the Jesus myth. Historically, Jesus is a complete ghost.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
There is evidence for Jesus, and that is what I pasted historical sources. Where are the historians and others speaking about Horsus or Osiris as historical people, not myths? The Gospels authors met Jesus, these people are seen as biographers who sat and wrote about the life of Jesus. Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Suetonius, Tacitius all wrote about Jesus in the first century.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
You didn't post historical sources. You posted a bunch of names, some of whose supposed mentions of Jesus are forgeries, others of whom never mention Jesus at all. But since you are just repeating this list from a Christian website or video you don't know that the list is erroneous. The gospels were named after long after the fact. They were not written by the apostles they're named after and their writers never met Jesus. Biblical scholars themselves acknowledge this.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
The names I posted are of the people that wrote about Jesus. All the names listed have written about Jesus, why else would I list them. You keep saying don't copy from Christian websites, the names of the people writing about Jesus that I listed are accepted by historians, what ever their own religious views, as valuble historical sources. The Gospels are seen by scholars as 1st century biographies, these are people that sat down and wrote about the life of Jesus.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
You can call them "biographies", but scholars agree that they weren't written by anyone who'd ever actually met Jesus.
+"the names listed have written about Jesus, why else would I list them."+
Because you think they have since that's what Christian websites claim. You mentioned Suetonius. Provide the source and give the quote of Suetonius ever mentioning JESUS.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Scholars deem the Gospels to be biographies. Scholars do not agree that they were not written by the people that said they written the Gospels, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. I have given you evidence to believe that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were the four Gospel authors.
Here is the quote from Suetonius regarding Christian Jews and all the other quotes from historians and others regarding Jesus:
thedevineevidence . com/jesus_history.html
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
I don't see anywhere on that page where Suetonius speaks about "Christian Jews" or Jesus. Please cut and paste the exact quote where he mentions Jesus' name.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
What does it say in the beginning of the Gospel of Luke? Luke does not say he was an eyewitness, but He is writing an "orderly account" of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth after "carefully investigating" the events in question (Luke 1:3). In other words, he is playing the part of investigative reporter and historian.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
The strongest evidence attesting to Matthew’s authorship is the fact that four ancient sources, not counting the title itself, specifically attribute the Gospel to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus. Those sources are Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea, all significant leaders or writers in the early Christian community.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Moreover, the Gospel of Matthew was in wide circulation in the early church, and was circulated as an account written by Matthew, with no apparent question or contestation.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Early church figures, including Papias, Irenaeus, and Origen, all attribute the Synoptic Gospel of Mark to Mark.
Clement of Alexandria and Jerome of Palestine also affirm Mark's authorship.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Why would the early church falsely attribute this Gospel (especially if it was indeed the first circulated) to Mark, a second-tier follower of Christ at best? Why not attribute it directly to Peter? If the early church wanted to utilize false attribution in order to enhance the manuscript's credibility, they could have done much better than Mark.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@xtrashed
Peter has gospels too. The Church fathers spread the false attributions around.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
The Gospel of Peter is apocraphya. The apogrpahya are a group of books whose authenticity was questioned, where they were written when, and by whom they claimed. The Gospels contained in the New Testament were those whose pedigree was impecable.
What Church Fathers spread what false attributations? Look at my comment regarding the Gospel of Mark. It would not make any sense for the Church Fathers to attribute the Gospel of Mark to Mark if it were not true.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius) both attribute the Gospel of John to John.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
Let's take a look at Julius Caesar, one of Rome's most prominent figures. Caesar is well know for his military conquests. After his Gallic Wars, he made the famous statement, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Only five sources report his military conquests: writings by Caesar himself, Cicero, Livy, the Salona Decree, and Appian (and Appian was second century, more than 150 years after Julius died). Why didn't more writers mention his great military conquests?
xtrashed 11 months ago
+"writings by Caesar himself"+
Exactly. Writings from Caesar. That's what real people do. They leave things that show their existence. Writings, images, wives, children, contemporary mentions by eyewitnesses. There are none of these for Jesus. Which, of course, isn't surprising for people who don't exist.
Iannes33 11 months ago
@Iannes33
I am not interesting in contuing have this conversation if you just harp on the same dogmatic nonsense. Jesus din't write his own books, or text because in ancient society a teacher would not write his own books, he would hire a scribe to do it as a he recited his teachings.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
We know that the Roman empeor at the time of Jesus was the emperor Tiberius, how many historical sources do we have that even mention the Roman emperor Tiberius within 150 years of his life? We have 10 sources, within 150 years for the most powerful man on the planet, and one of those soruces is the Bible.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
How many sources do we have for Jesus within 150 years of his death? We have 42 historical sources for Jesus, and Jesus was a Jewish peasent, a Jewish carpenter, not a emperor like Tiberius or a Roman general like Caesor, and yet we have more evidence for Jesus. This shows you the importance of Jesus. Do you believe Emperor Tiberius didn't exist?
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
You have to account for the start of Christianity, you have to explain the faith of of these authors of the Gospels, what would lead Jews as well as Gentiles to worship a crucified man on a cross naked? What would lead Jews to believe Jesus was their messiah when for all intents and purposes Jesus was a failed Messiah because Rome vanquished him on the cross.
xtrashed 11 months ago
@Iannes33
The only explanation for worshipping Jesus was that God raised Jesus from the dead proving that Jesus was not a failed messiah but the eternal son in the flesh.
xtrashed 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Iannes33
In 150 years his death, more non-Christian authors alone comment on Jesus than all of the sources who mentioned Julius Caesar's great military conquests within 150 years of his death.
xtrashed 11 months ago
thumbs up if you was looking for dubstep? :(
ItBeReece 1 year ago
Thank u for this important info, great material for beginners comin into this from
christianity. continue to do gods work
NaeQwayXi 1 year ago
@NaeQwayXi
Bless.
Iannes33 1 year ago
this is ether
ninjanizzle 1 year ago
@ninjanizzle
Thanks. This was actually the first YouTube video I put together.
Iannes33 1 year ago
Or perhaps the Hindu "Vedas" are the oldest text .....
1111GENESIS 1 year ago
@1111GENESIS
The Vedas aren't that old compared to Kemetic and Sumerian texts. The early Vedic beliefs are likely based in part off of Kemetic systems for that matter.
Iannes33 1 year ago
Just curious so was it the Egyptian or the "Sumerian" creation myth since Sumerian predates Egyptian heiroglyphics by 400 years?
1111GENESIS 1 year ago
@1111GENESIS
Creation myth? As in creation of the world? I'm not sure what you mean, but if that's what you're talking about then I think Sumer's creation myth is dated older than Egypt's.
Iannes33 1 year ago
flawless my brother
RebelAllianceMedia 2 years ago
Thanks, A2. I had to re-uploaded this video because the other version was in high-definition and I noticed it was taking forever to load.
Iannes33 2 years ago
flawless!
ahshar2 2 years ago