DNA PROVES "the genetic unity of all mankind" is NOT from Noah around 2300 BC, and indigenous peoples exist genetically around the globe branching out over over 40,000 years ago. But Jesus "believed" it, so the loss of credibility imputes to Jesus as a diety, for how can a diety believe a MYTH? The bible DATES the "Genetic Unity of All Mankind", as stated in Gen 11:10-26. If you do the math, the flood occurs 292 years "Before Abram" (Abraham), and Abraham speaks of Pharaoh during Egypt.
According to the bible, Jesus said: "Father, let this cup pass from me!" No one heard it but Jesus and God. The disciples were asleep. Soon after, Jesus was arrested and wisked away by the Romans. So who wrote it? Anyone dare to give an intelligent answer?
The gospels were not written by M M L & J there were written many years after the fact by Greek Christians, around Mark being the first. AD70 the rest followed also written by Greeks. Look up Bart Ehrman here on YT. There's not enough room to write it all here. There is no way you can use the gospels as historical evidence
There are many sources telling stories about Jesus, but also, there are a lot of contradictions among them, we know that the official stories were selected and adapted by the high priesthood in order to have control and copyrights and so to establish a very lucrative business (named the Christian Church) So even, if the historical Jesus is somewhat related to the Gospels that does not mean that the Gospels are the true revelation, because there was a lot of manipulations and fabrications.
I think it's common sense to conclude that the supernatural accounts of Jesus' life were legends. He was obviously a great moral teacher and had a significant following which ended in his death. I would imagine that if John Lennon was born back in antiquity, wrote all of those songs that he did, that by now he would have all of these legends attributed to him.
@thegoodfellaa If it was written AFTER THE FACT, then why does the writer have Jesus saying "pray that your flight not be in the winter or on the Sabbath." The final assault came on a specific date in September. Why would an author add that if it was past history. No, the Mount Olivet Discourse in the three synoptic Gospels were each written by 67 AD at latest.
That's nonsense their is no proof what so ever that he ever existed,neither writing nor archeology has proven that he existed,the only thing that you have is the bible to try to reason that he did,without your bible their is no Jesus.their was hundreds of writers and Roman historians at the time of Jesus not one of them mention him.I'm going to mention a few Pliny Elder, Pliny Young, Josephus, Necrobius, Juvenal, Ovid,Octavian the Emperor was an avid writer, Cicero, Seneca, not even Pilate.
@Schwarzkald I'll tell you some "nonsense." You wrote: "their was hundreds of writers and Roman historians at the time of Jesus."
There were only FOUR historians living in the first century who wrote a extant history of the first century: Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Plutarch. Three of the four mention Jesus. 75 percent!
Only Plutarch did not. He wrote only biographies of RULERS.
There were other WRITERS, but none of them wrote history and would have no reason to cover first century Judea.
@serpentineflame The whole video is free on YouTube in two versions -- a long one with Eric Holmberg and a short one here. But you can buy the DVD if you want.
Jesus is KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS! none other name higher than him. Jesus is the only man who walked on this earth to have startled men with his miraculous deeds. None other!
Overwhelming evidence? You've got to be kidding. There is not one reference to the Jesus of the bible during his lifetime--not one, from any source. This was during one of the most literate places and times of antiquity. Not one person bothered to write down "Jesus rose from the dead." No one bothered to even write down "There are some people that say a man named Jesus rose from the dead." Not one contemporary source.
The fact that there are contemporary accounts of Jesus only confirms the basic information that he lived and died - it cannot possibly corroborate things like miracles of walking on water etc, which are more likely interpretations or metaphors invented by the gospel writers who were trying to express a conviction of the importance of Jesus, not of historical reporting.
All three religions of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same characters...just in different roles. By the way average life expectancy in the time of Christ was less than half of today. Modern medicine has doubled our life expectancy.
@kurtcochran The life expectancy of ALL people was half. But someone living into adulthood usually lived to 70 or 80 just like today, just as all people living to 50 or 60 has a higher life expectancy than all people at age 1. Just look at the birth and death dates of anyone from ancient times and you will see septuagenarians and octogenarians were common.
Although Flavius Josephus does indeed mention Jesus twice, he also states that he didn't believe he was Christ and that in fact, his brother James was the more holy of the two.
The sources they cite are either early Christian leaders repeating the catechisms of the day or else historians writing about the Jesus cult. Ignatius is the earliest Christian they list, but he's living a century later then the crucifixion and his reciting of rapidly crystalizing myths is not evidence of their credibility. Josephus speaks of the Xians and their beliefs but does not confirm their historicity. A news report today on Xians contains only slightly less evidence of Jesus' existence.
@ororc Clement and the Didache are the earliest Christian writings at c. 70 to 96 AD. Prior to that we have only the canonical writings.
Josephus was born in 37 AD and lived in Jerusalem until 70 AD, so he would have had personal acquaintance with the disciples -- especially James who stayed in Jerusalem his whole life.
Clement refers to Paul and Peter as having lived in his own generation.
The greatest issue with the deity of Christ really has to do with the Flood. Gen 11:10-27 definitively states the Flood was 292 prior to the birth of Abram (Abraham). All Abrahamic religions must rely on that fact or myth. This dates without question the biblical flood story to c.2300 BC. This is IMPOSSIBLE by every scientific evidence including the Kings List that spans hundreds of year before and after this date. Therefore since Jesus mentions in the days of Noah, Jesus believe a MYTH!
@neinthalmann The Flood was approximately in 2350 BC, but depending on how you do the chronology some have 3000 BC. There is NO historical record that is older than 5000 years. Some archaeologists put civilization as older, but no writing exists much prior to the time of Abraham. The Flood record actually confirms the record of civilization which came out of nowhere and exploded everywhere about 4500 years ago. If evolution is true, we'd expect human history to go back much further.
@jcr4runner there wasn't much writing prior to Abraham? the time of Abraham is circa 1996 BC, but the Sumerians had proper writing circa 3000 BC, over 1000 years prior. Human history does go back much further. Anatomically modern-appearing humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.
If you were going to make up a religion 2000 years ago based on the eyewitness account of someone rising from the grave back to life, you certainly would not have used a woman as your eyewitness. A womans word was not even admissable as evidence in the courts of that day. This tells me that the eyewitness of Mary at the tomb is accurate. Also, with two Roman guards at the tomb, no one could have stolen the body as the Roman guards posted there would have been executed for dereliction of duty.
and the next focus of acts s the place of jerusalem, and the temple and by the way the temple and holy city wer destroe between 66 - 70 ad, and why does it not ment this is if it was so late
so if the book of act was in 61 then luke was much earlier prehaps mid 50's ad, and the other two were before, pauls letter were before 64
@glennybar this is erroneous, the gospel were actually written between 45-60 ad
in the beggin of the book of act luke recorded that ths was his second book, namely the gospel of luke and acts, and here is the kicker, we can establish a date of 60-61 ad, as the main focus of this book of acts were peter , paul and james the half brother of jesus
a ---- james died in 62, b ------- paul died in 64, and c ------ peter died in 67 and why does not mention these three death if it was written in 68
Jesus didn't want to be worshiped he said follow and stay true to god. So... "Christianity" which whorships him shouldn't exist. Also the Old Testament stated the Messiah could not be harmed for the lord would hear his cry and have angels protect him.
These two people are perpetuating the lies of the bible by telling more lies in support of it. Mathew Mark Luke & John DID NOT write the books in their name. They were written "according to", not by, which means somebody else but them wrote them. As this is common knowledge within the educated religious community, they are then by definition, liars. That's not surprising though because their other evidence to support the existence of Christ is all second hand evidence and some of it forged.
The Josephus account is a forgery, yet they still use it. As for the Gospels, they were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John but were compiled and written by their followers. The Gospel according to John was written in stages and was completed in what is now western Turkey, about one hundred years after Jesus' death.
@buddhasknowbest How then is the earliest fragment of John that exists dated to 115 AD? No one dates the NT books so late anymore. Late dating has been definitively dispoved.
@jcr4runner, what difference does it make. Think of it like this, how would a 20 year old in 2010 be able to write verbatim the words of a complete stranger who died in 1950? This is apparently what was done in the gospels. As for Paul's letters, they may be dated to the time directly after Christ's death however they do not include any information on the teaching of Jesus or even vague representations of his words.
@BadString No, it should be how would a 50 year old be able to write the words he had memorize as a young man in his 20s. It's 35 years, not 60 years.
30 AD to 65 AD.
I am 48 and I can remember all the words to "America Pie" and hundreds of other folk and rock ballads I first heard in the 70s. Memorizing these stories was much the same.
@generalataris Soem say as early as 70 aaad some say as late as 175. However, the majority put it in a 15 year window and 115 AD is in the middle of that window. It's also identical to the account of John we have today.
@buddhasknowbest They have to keep using it. 2,000 years later there's no more evidence for Jesus being the savior. None of these historians mention the miracles or the raising of the dead.
But the very sad TRUTH, is that absolutely nobody outside of the bible, can say that they walked, talked, lived etc. with the mythological Jebus character. You are very wrong. If you limit your evidence to a person that is outside of the bible that says they saw Jesus; your conversation ends up with absoulutely NOTHING. Nobody outside of the bible ever saw Jesus and wrote about it! No money for you and your church
it should be considered that tacitus lived two decades after the susposed death of christ,so anything he wrote about would be second hand information.many historians feel his passage on jesus is a forgery.if in fact jesus did live and did all the things the bible says he did with multitudes of people watching him,there is no reason why history would'nt be riddled with his accounts,but there is'nt.there are only obscure,vague passages that most feel are forged
None of this proves ANYTHING. I don't care if they find 1,000 identically written accounts of people seeing Jesus, it does not PROVE that he was real. Reading old texts that confer with each other is no basis from which to believe in the supernatural.
@bbrr9 You should check out Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Got some good stuff as far as the historical and scientific data around Christ's claims to be the Son of God. The thing that stands out the most to me is that the early leaders of the Church, especially Peter and Paul, openly acknowledge that if Jesus had not been Resurrected, that their faith was in vain and a waste. But yet, those men and many many others who knew Christ personally willingly died for their faith.
Take this issue into the ProCathedral and all the other Catholic Churches in America. Make these ghastly edifices the place for discourse and win back the schools and the kids from the cuckoo church and all its subverted secular servants and agents....
Yup, all these prophetic themes foretoled the coming of the son of God - Yahweh / Jehovah incarnate. If the son of God was to appear at some moment in time, of course something that big would be experienced through the collective unconscious mind, which was designed and directed by God's active force, the Holy Spirit, which animates all life. These alleged parallels simly are pretexts of that coming truth. One God, and His name is Jesus Christ, as manifested in the flesh to relate the fallen.
Let's say Jesus existed. Let's say Jesus founded Christianity and was crucified for his "sins" against Rome and the Rabbis. Even if there were unassailable evidence for his existance-which there is not- it, in no way, would prove he was God/son of God-same thing-. It would only prove that a man existed 2,000 years ago who started a following, like many others of the time, based on his beliefs. To conclude, on no evidence, that Jesus was God, is sheer desperation.
@jcr4runner,Good grief, what does "dynamic faith" mean if faith is defined as 'a belief NOT based on facts or proof'? If it's not a fact it's a lie therefore dynamic faith must be based on dynamic lies & the dynamic lack of proof. By the way one of the definitions of dynamic is "pertaining to a computer memory that requires periodic updates". That actually fits quite well. Are you brave enough to approve my posts?? Or shall you continue this as a one sided discussion, preaching to the converted
@jcr4runner Faith could conceivably be the product of a shared delusion, and you would never know the difference. No amount or type of faith can be evidence for anything.
Think of how convincing and real Santa Claus feels to young children.
@bbrr9 Why would all 12 disciples die for their refusal to say that Jesus was a fraud ?....It makes absolutely no sense.....If you were playing along with some intricate scam and the main character was killed.....would you die to continue the scam ?......I doubt it
If Matthew, Mark or Luke wrote a Gospel by 68 AD then either they or some of the people who provided the information for their Gospels could have known Jesus. Certainly those who received and approved of the Gospel could have known Jesus.
That's only 38 years later. People lived much longer than that even in ancient times.
Some church fathers wrote that Jesus' disciple John died in the reign of Domitian (c. 96 AD).
Then John was probably a youth when Jesus died. (Let's say 16). And since many rabbinical students began their discipleship as early as age 12, this is possible.
If John's Gospel was written sometime between 70 to 90 AD, that would have made him between 56 to 76 at the time of the writing.
@jcr4runner I don't think so. I got the lowest average as forty. And the highest I found was 60. I doubt that people would have lived to be as old as 70 or 80. Especially without modern medicine. The life expectancy would probably be lower for more poor people too. That being said, I do believe that Jesus was a real person, but no one that met him wrote about him. That's not too surprising because the people that did meet him were probably illiterate.
@glennybar this is erroneous, the gospel were actually written between 45-60 ad
in the beggin of the book of act luke recorded that ths was his second book, namely the gospel of luke and acts, and here is the kicker, we can establish a date of 60-61 ad, as the main focus of this book of acts were peter , paul and james the half brother of jesus
a ---- james died in 62, b ------- pual died in 64, and c ------ peter died in 67 and why does not mention these three death if it was written in 68
this piece starts out full of shit. jennings DID NOT admit jesus was a real person, he simply states all but the most skeptical historians accept his existence. the fact that christians have to lie constantly to support their religion should speak volumes.
Tacitus calls Jesus "Christ" as a nickname. Not at all does Tacitus believe Jesus of Nazareth is the "Christ" which is the same as saying "Messiah". Tacitus is talking about where the name Christian came from. Also Tacitus says Christ was put to death by Pilate. Clearly Tacitus' statement about Christians proves he was not a Christian and would not hesitate to put one to death.
No eye witness accounts outside the bible. No quotes and no dates. Why? because to include the dates would disprove the point they're trying to make.
Despite several active holy land historians writing about the region during the supposed time of Jesus, NOT ONE mentions this man performing incredible feats, giving sermons or being persecuted.
It is only many years later when the character was created.
There were no "active holy land historians" during the time of Jesus.
In fact, there are only four historians (outside the NT writers) who wrote ANY history about the first century -- Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus and Plutarch -- 3 of 4 mention Jesus and the Christians.
It's easy to be misled by bogus material on the Internet, but if you did your own research, you would see that this is true.
Well Tacitus calls Jesus of Nazareth by the term Christ and so do other non Christian early non Christian writers. Christ to non Christians at that time called Jesus of Nazareth by the name Christ as one would use a "nickname". Tacitus, Pliny,etc. certainly did not reguard Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ or annointed one or Messiah. Indeed, they had many Christians put to death or whipped and chained. All skeptical scholars I know of except one are certain Jesus existed as a person.
Josephus would still have had contact with the earliest of Christians. The only craziness comes from those who want to deny all evidence which supports Jesus. Even if there was irrefutable evidence, many would still not believe.
@BCPowerman says: "Even if there was irrefutable evidence, many would still not believe."
You are quite wrong, this is a typical attitude of believers, that already know the answer so they only need to manipulate and cheery pick the proof to support it.
It makes no difference to an atheist if Mr. Jesus existed or not, in fact most probably 95% of all atheists do believe that he did historically exist.
Call it whatever you want if makes you happy, you religious people are artists with word salad and brain rape.
Even the word "truth" has no meaning to me anymore, whenever I hear someone use the word "truth" I immediately think of another religious brain masturbation.
@jcr4runner says "Yes, but are you absolutely sure that there is no truth?"
I'm absolutely sure there are truths, the only problem is that we don't have any absolute words to define it, the word "truth" itself has been abused in all ways possible by all religions.
For the majority of the population, truth simply means something like "faith" and we know that faith by definition is not a virtue (unlike religion would like to make you believe), because it's based on the lack of proof.
It's impossible to know a truth when you see it, even though I accept there must be a truth.
The word faith (look it up in any dictionary) is by definition a belief not based on facts or proofs.
We can go towards the truth, everyone in the end finds his truth, and thus, because the truth can only be one, all the others must be wrong, so you have your truth, and all the others religions are wrong, I have my truth and yours is wrong, so in the end the word truth is useless.
@jcr4runner TRUTH is that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence. And Faith by definition as before, is a belief NOT based on facts, proofs or truth. So you have faith in lies, or another way of putting it, you have blind faith in non provable facts based on lies and untruths. The ONLY proof is written in the bible & those writings are unsubstantiated. If it was brought before the law today it would fail as circumstantial evidence.
As usual this dishonest way of comparing a religion with a non belief proclamation.
If you carry on like this I will put you in the same category "theism", together with Islam, Hindu, African beliefs, and the Japanese emperor god.
There is no dogma or belief system in atheism, China has is social/communist/totalitarian just like a religion, the government does not support religion (just like in america)
In wikipedia I read that only 8% - 14% are atheists.
I don't see any atheist dogma that declares that you must "believe" that there is no God otherwise you end up in hell.
For all I know, all atheists I know happen to be pluralists (it's not a "atheist religion" dogma, anyone can be a pluralist), so you can believe what you want, just keep your religious bulling away from me thank you.
Jesus is simply one of a long-held man-made archetype; he is just the current/contemporary one. It is man's way of trying to put a face on the gods/our creators/All That Is. It doesn't make it wrong nor am I saying Jesus wasn't real or that his message wasn't important - it was. But to deny that his story was not original is to ignore a great deal of history.
scholars don't wanna risk their credibility because they don't want bible thumpers like you whining to get them fired after they present legitimate research
Individual's who are aware the the undeniable fact that this world is run by a group of Luciferian elite may come to the conclusion that the "Jesus as Myth" propaganda is created by them and spread to the masses much, like that within the popular culture and movements such as Feminism, Marxism, Fascism and Communism. They want to slowly condition the public mind to accept anti-christian values and to push forwatrd the New Age false religion. Notice how Christianity is always attacked?
Dude it's not about Jesus being a myth. I'm sure most here are on the lookout for the number of the name. It's about the same story being told being told well before Jesus. Do you see the influence that Israel had on it's neightbours, particularly Egypt?
Do you see why the same story is told with the Egyptian twist of the serpent?
Do you see the truth?
Maybe, just maybe Jesus was more Buddhist than the eye for an eye.
No, I don't see the similarities. It''s not that I don't want to. It is that I have actually studied mythology as pat of my college degree and they are not that similar beyond the kind of similarities you would expect religious stories to have.
Further, Jesus-mythists simply make up similarities that were not in the original stories.
The Book of Revelations indicates the Beast John speaks of is Roman. It was the Romans that crucified Jesus, persecuted Christians and boiled John in oil. So we must look to the church of Rome for apostasy and we see it throughout the Catholic religion and those that pay homage to it (Protestantism). These are not the church of Jesus as they break God's laws. ie. "Sunday" keeping. Sun worship is pagan - Baal. Goes back to Babylon. And since one command is broken, they are all broken.
This is nonsense. Tacitus, for example, wrote about a HUNDRED YEARS after the supposed time of jesus.
There were PLENTY of historians and chroniclers around during the time of jesus, but NONE of them saw fit to write anything about him. That is fact more relevant to the question of the historicity of jesus than anything Tacitus could have written.
@jcr4runner - wow really. Have you not read about Mithra, Osiris and Krishna who were all dieties before Christ. Surely if you studied you would be able to see comparisons, in the internet and out, by "scholars," whatever makes one that, I'm assuming you are.
jc4runner: I can't speak for scholars, but it's pretty damning evidence that Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz all have an almost exact same "history" as Jesus (the virgin birth around the winter solstice, the crucifixion for the good of mankind, and the death, 3 days in hell, and resurrection around the vernal equinox). The prove is there; this is history that was around long before Internet or "Internet hacks".
None of these figures follows all of those similarities with Jesus. Not one!
The Internet hacks are those who have altered the facts to suit their hypothesis.
The Jesus-as-myth hypothesis was proposed about 100 years ago and was refuted int he 1930s. The proposed "similarities" were the result of very bad scholarship on the part of the promoters. But now internet hacks just recycle the errors.
Corrections the first followers of jesus were not christians actually christians as such became in existence 200 years after his death his first followers were jewish and they didnt believe that he was God christanity as such is a counterfeit religion created with political purposes, its base belief is a pagan egyptian myth
Celsus (not "Celsius") set out to discredit Jesus. He claimed He was not the one true God. He admitted Jesus did miracles, but He learned how to do magic because He was an Egyptian magician and attacked His character. Celsus was refuted by the church father Origen.
Christianity weathered many, many attacks from pagans in the early centuries. These pagans believed in gods and miracles themselves, but they did not want to accept Jesus.
jc4runner: Of course they didn't want to accept Jesus! They had their own religions, and Christianity was shoved down a lot of their throats. Christianity was the new kid on the block, and people who had believed & worshipped other ways for centuries weren't very keen on suddenly switching because yet another deity had popped up - this one, his followers claim, to be "the one and only". Early pagans had trouble wrapping their minds around a monotheistic deity for obvious reasons.
So are pictures which words are derived from. Heiroglyphics was the first words as pictures. It is the true language. Metu neter or heiroglyphics from Egypt/Kemet were what words are to us now and all words come from pictures or ones perspective of a thing, etc... All religions connect to Ancient Egypt because of this. Heru was Jesus of Ancient Kema'at/Egypt. Look it up or be afraid to know. Or just deny!
I find it hard to believe that people actually agree with Christianity. It is nothing more than a farce developed politically in order to control society. I mean first they claim their "savior" is god himself. Then they say if you don't believe in their religion you'll be sent to a place of fire, and pain and torture where you'll suffer forever. I would really like for someone to explain to me why Christianity is so similar to all other pagan religions before it.
Tha name Jesus was decreed in 325 ad by council of nicea, it is a fake name that has no relation to an ancient language name. You people are bible school blind. Its just like public school, they doctrinize you.
Well, actually...hahahahahahahahaha! Oh, I'm...I'm sorry, I couldn't control myself. I haven't laughed that hard since I was a little girl. Thank you. Maybe next time you should read one of these things that we call books first before you just start throwing out crazy talk like that. Wow, simply stunning. Unbelievable.
it's funny how all of the historians you mention weren't born until 70+ years after jesus' death, so how can they truly record the history of jesus if they weren't even alive during his lifetime?
That would also exclude records of some Roman Emperors and Alexander the Great since their extant histories were not written for 100 to 400 years after their lifetimes.
The history of Jesus began during his lifetime. An oral tradition was cultivated by his Apostles in the 30s and 40s and we see Christian literature very early -- at least by 55 AD and perhaps as early as 40 AD.
it's funny how Tiberius died in 37AD and his biography was written in 114AD but still people believe he was real... so how can they truly record the history of Tiberius if they were probably not even alive during his lifetime??? if they were born in his lifetime they still would have been small children when he died ...
Tacitus didn't write anything about christ until the 2nd century. I don't see that as convincing evidence. He would had to get his information from christians who could only repeat what they are told. Pliny the Younger didn't live at the time of chirst so he also ony could write what christians told him to. Pliny the Elder did live at the time of christ but didn't write anything about christ. What good does it do to list historians who lived after christ?
Don't you find it odd that the two historians who wrote about christ didn't live at the time he did, but the one historian who did live at the time of christ didn't write anything. Livy lived until BC17 so he could have wrote about the birth and early childhood. A king felt threatened by the birth and three man came to see the newborn so people supposedly knew about jesus but the historians didn't write anything.
No, I don't find it odd that Livy would not write about Jesus.
The history of Herod is one of the massacres of thousands of people including family members. He was in constant fear of a usurper. A few dozen infants in Bethlehem was a blip in the list.
You people just refuse to face reality. I wasn't talking about Livy not writing about just any infant. If the wise man knew of the birth of jesus and herod know about the birth of the so called savior than why didn't any historian.
Typical liars ... The only person who actually lived who wrote anything about the time of Jesus was Philo and he wrote about Pilate's actions against the Jews but does not mention Jesus or The Baptist ... Every other person who wrote about this Jesus or The Baptist in either the New Testament or Roman History were not eyewitnesses and in every case were not even born at the time of this supposed messiah .
Philo is not a historian of the first century. He wrote mainly allegorical expositions on the books of Moses especially Genesis.
Philo mentions the tyranny of Pilate in a letter he delivered to Caesar Caius Caligula. This is not an exhaustive history of Pilate but deals with ONE incident.
While it is true that ANYONE in the first century COULD have written about Jesus (as Pliny writing to Trajan did) it's unreasonable to assume that someone not writing history of would need to mention Him.
Pliny the younger didn't write about jesus but about the chirstians acting wild and being thrown out of rome. Pliny the elder did live at the time of christ and Pliny the elder didn't write anything about jesus.
Pliny's letter to Trajan inquires whether Christians should be punished for worshiping Christ as a god.
"... they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom ... to assemble again to partake of food.
You admit that Philo was the only one writing anything in the time of Jesus. That is true. As I said, Philo did not write a history of Palestine or the Roman Empire. It's hard to find anything in the narrow time of 26 to 30 AD.
What we know about the Roman Empire comes mainly from 3 people who all were writing in the 2nd century. We know about 1st century Palestine from (only bits of Philo) and Josephus' two histories -- and of course the early Christian writings which corroborate all of this.
Read The Talmud of Jmmanuel. Google search for the PDF. It is the true account of the man the council of Nicaea needed to conceal. Its a FIRSTHAND account of the being that came to earth to wake humanity up to who we really are! Penned byJudas Iscariot! He wasnt his betrayer but his FRIEND. Isa Rashid translated 36 chapters from the original four scrolls before he was assassinated for his efforts! The Holy Bible/Sun Book was created to keep the real truth from the masses not reveal it! Enjoy.
They accuse others of not mentioning everything but they fail to do so themselves : Josephus' writings have been suspected of being subjected to interpolations by the hands of christians, and this suspicion is supported by heavy philological studies.
Whatever it is the christians are suspected to have added to the writings of Josephus is irrelevant since the writings contain nothing to promote the divinity of Jesus. What the writings do however point to is the fact that a historical figure called Jesus did actually exist, at least even the critics agree on this point.
The controversy over Josephus' longer passage is over whether he could have written things like: "He was the Christ" and "was a doer of wonders" and so on, because it would make him seem like a Christian believer.
Only a few Josephus exerts think the entire so-called "longer passage" was interpolated. The vast majority of scholars agree that Josephus knew something about Jesus and the Christian movement as attested to three places in his writings.
argh, you can't just say "there's so many sources that actually back up what's recorded in the New Testament" and then not look at any of them in depth; you can't just gloss over this stuff, make a blanket statement like that and then move on - how is this supposed to be convincing at all?!
Don't tell me you actually ignore that philology is a HUGE tool in historical critics ? How do you think scholars discovered that Luke and Matthew copied Marc and the Q source ?
I think you are meaning to use the terms "form criticism" and "source criticism" -- while philology can include textual criticism, it is a broader field.
The problem with the Higher Critics is that they pretend to read between the lines of the text while they deny the documentary evidence and external testimony right in front of their eyes.
I don't hold to Marcan priority or the "Q" hypothesis. The patristic testimony is of independence and early authorship (all Gospels were completed in their final form by 40 to 65 AD) using a common oral source.
this is a pretty poor attempt at proving the historical Jesus. I'm a Cristian, so I don't need these two people to convince me, but this was a really sloppy job. When talking about historical documentation of Jesus, they make it seem like there's SO many non-Christians writing all sorts of info about him. That's not the case. And the Church fathers who wrote about him were not contemporary to him, and thus don't prove the point that these two people are trying to make.
all i have to say is....it's better to live your life like there is a God and in the end find out there is not God than to live life like there is no God and find out in the end there is!
it's BEST to live your own life, without any "higher powers" controlling you at all, without any fear of death and what's after. I can tell you right now what's gonna happend. You live your life, die, rot, and you will turn into dirt. You will feed the plants and maybe spawn a tree. People should worship tree's instead of god imo... it makes more sense, and I could respect people for loving trees. Religion on the other hand, is just wrong in every way.
There is evidence for the existence of Joshua, whom the jews rejected as their Messiah. Thre is NO evidence for the salvation story.. NONE>
Why would the jewish scholars, contemporaries of Jesus, versed in the Torah and the prophecies, reject him as their Messiah. There is no reasonable explanation but one NO EVIDENCE the prophecies applied to that person Joshua.
As I said previously, the girl in this video is an embarassment. Other religions are not based on historical figures?!? Judaism must be, otherwise Christianity would be a sham! Mohammed and Siddharta (Buddha) are not historical figures? The Hindu scriptures (The Rig Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita) are wonderful, & much older than The Bible. Moreover, like Zoroastrianism, they reinforce the tenets of Christianity. You're not gonna do Christianity any favours by putting down other creeds
DNA PROVES "the genetic unity of all mankind" is NOT from Noah around 2300 BC, and indigenous peoples exist genetically around the globe branching out over over 40,000 years ago. But Jesus "believed" it, so the loss of credibility imputes to Jesus as a diety, for how can a diety believe a MYTH? The bible DATES the "Genetic Unity of All Mankind", as stated in Gen 11:10-26. If you do the math, the flood occurs 292 years "Before Abram" (Abraham), and Abraham speaks of Pharaoh during Egypt.
neinthalmann 3 months ago
The DVD should be available for free if it was good. :)
Undeterminable 5 months ago
According to the bible, Jesus said: "Father, let this cup pass from me!" No one heard it but Jesus and God. The disciples were asleep. Soon after, Jesus was arrested and wisked away by the Romans. So who wrote it? Anyone dare to give an intelligent answer?
astrofrk 7 months ago
So, how did christianity first spread? Did it begin WHILE jesus was around or did it start after?
HellspawnICX 8 months ago
The gospels were not written by M M L & J there were written many years after the fact by Greek Christians, around Mark being the first. AD70 the rest followed also written by Greeks. Look up Bart Ehrman here on YT. There's not enough room to write it all here. There is no way you can use the gospels as historical evidence
TPLR2 10 months ago
There are many sources telling stories about Jesus, but also, there are a lot of contradictions among them, we know that the official stories were selected and adapted by the high priesthood in order to have control and copyrights and so to establish a very lucrative business (named the Christian Church) So even, if the historical Jesus is somewhat related to the Gospels that does not mean that the Gospels are the true revelation, because there was a lot of manipulations and fabrications.
powerdriller10 11 months ago
I think it's common sense to conclude that the supernatural accounts of Jesus' life were legends. He was obviously a great moral teacher and had a significant following which ended in his death. I would imagine that if John Lennon was born back in antiquity, wrote all of those songs that he did, that by now he would have all of these legends attributed to him.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
@thegoodfellaa If it was written AFTER THE FACT, then why does the writer have Jesus saying "pray that your flight not be in the winter or on the Sabbath." The final assault came on a specific date in September. Why would an author add that if it was past history. No, the Mount Olivet Discourse in the three synoptic Gospels were each written by 67 AD at latest.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
That's nonsense their is no proof what so ever that he ever existed,neither writing nor archeology has proven that he existed,the only thing that you have is the bible to try to reason that he did,without your bible their is no Jesus.their was hundreds of writers and Roman historians at the time of Jesus not one of them mention him.I'm going to mention a few Pliny Elder, Pliny Young, Josephus, Necrobius, Juvenal, Ovid,Octavian the Emperor was an avid writer, Cicero, Seneca, not even Pilate.
Schwarzkald 1 year ago
@Schwarzkald I'll tell you some "nonsense." You wrote: "their was hundreds of writers and Roman historians at the time of Jesus."
There were only FOUR historians living in the first century who wrote a extant history of the first century: Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Plutarch. Three of the four mention Jesus. 75 percent!
Only Plutarch did not. He wrote only biographies of RULERS.
There were other WRITERS, but none of them wrote history and would have no reason to cover first century Judea.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)): "He is Allâh, (the) One
Allâh-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks)
He begets not, nor was He begotten
And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him
TheSalem99 1 year ago
is this a commorcial? what's for sale?
serpentineflame 1 year ago
@serpentineflame The whole video is free on YouTube in two versions -- a long one with Eric Holmberg and a short one here. But you can buy the DVD if you want.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
Jesus is KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS! none other name higher than him. Jesus is the only man who walked on this earth to have startled men with his miraculous deeds. None other!
Your magicians? David Blaine?.....non-sense!
TheIlluminats 1 year ago
Overwhelming evidence? You've got to be kidding. There is not one reference to the Jesus of the bible during his lifetime--not one, from any source. This was during one of the most literate places and times of antiquity. Not one person bothered to write down "Jesus rose from the dead." No one bothered to even write down "There are some people that say a man named Jesus rose from the dead." Not one contemporary source.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
The fact that there are contemporary accounts of Jesus only confirms the basic information that he lived and died - it cannot possibly corroborate things like miracles of walking on water etc, which are more likely interpretations or metaphors invented by the gospel writers who were trying to express a conviction of the importance of Jesus, not of historical reporting.
john1801rambo 1 year ago
All three religions of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same characters...just in different roles. By the way average life expectancy in the time of Christ was less than half of today. Modern medicine has doubled our life expectancy.
kurtcochran 1 year ago
@kurtcochran The life expectancy of ALL people was half. But someone living into adulthood usually lived to 70 or 80 just like today, just as all people living to 50 or 60 has a higher life expectancy than all people at age 1. Just look at the birth and death dates of anyone from ancient times and you will see septuagenarians and octogenarians were common.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
Although Flavius Josephus does indeed mention Jesus twice, he also states that he didn't believe he was Christ and that in fact, his brother James was the more holy of the two.
pervious1 1 year ago
@pervious1 True. Your point?
jcr4runner 1 year ago
The sources they cite are either early Christian leaders repeating the catechisms of the day or else historians writing about the Jesus cult. Ignatius is the earliest Christian they list, but he's living a century later then the crucifixion and his reciting of rapidly crystalizing myths is not evidence of their credibility. Josephus speaks of the Xians and their beliefs but does not confirm their historicity. A news report today on Xians contains only slightly less evidence of Jesus' existence.
ororc 1 year ago
@ororc Clement and the Didache are the earliest Christian writings at c. 70 to 96 AD. Prior to that we have only the canonical writings.
Josephus was born in 37 AD and lived in Jerusalem until 70 AD, so he would have had personal acquaintance with the disciples -- especially James who stayed in Jerusalem his whole life.
Clement refers to Paul and Peter as having lived in his own generation.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
See a discussion on the flood myth Jesus believed in at by googling:
"Nein Thalmann Preterism Debate IS THERE BAD EVIDENCE FOR ADAM'S SIN?"
neinthalmann 1 year ago
The greatest issue with the deity of Christ really has to do with the Flood. Gen 11:10-27 definitively states the Flood was 292 prior to the birth of Abram (Abraham). All Abrahamic religions must rely on that fact or myth. This dates without question the biblical flood story to c.2300 BC. This is IMPOSSIBLE by every scientific evidence including the Kings List that spans hundreds of year before and after this date. Therefore since Jesus mentions in the days of Noah, Jesus believe a MYTH!
neinthalmann 1 year ago
@neinthalmann The Flood was approximately in 2350 BC, but depending on how you do the chronology some have 3000 BC. There is NO historical record that is older than 5000 years. Some archaeologists put civilization as older, but no writing exists much prior to the time of Abraham. The Flood record actually confirms the record of civilization which came out of nowhere and exploded everywhere about 4500 years ago. If evolution is true, we'd expect human history to go back much further.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner there wasn't much writing prior to Abraham? the time of Abraham is circa 1996 BC, but the Sumerians had proper writing circa 3000 BC, over 1000 years prior. Human history does go back much further. Anatomically modern-appearing humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.
TheRumpletiltskin 11 months ago
If you were going to make up a religion 2000 years ago based on the eyewitness account of someone rising from the grave back to life, you certainly would not have used a woman as your eyewitness. A womans word was not even admissable as evidence in the courts of that day. This tells me that the eyewitness of Mary at the tomb is accurate. Also, with two Roman guards at the tomb, no one could have stolen the body as the Roman guards posted there would have been executed for dereliction of duty.
rubbersole79 1 year ago
and the next focus of acts s the place of jerusalem, and the temple and by the way the temple and holy city wer destroe between 66 - 70 ad, and why does it not ment this is if it was so late
so if the book of act was in 61 then luke was much earlier prehaps mid 50's ad, and the other two were before, pauls letter were before 64
followerofjesus1984 1 year ago
@followerofjesus1984 Excellent point!! Indeed Why?
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@glennybar this is erroneous, the gospel were actually written between 45-60 ad
in the beggin of the book of act luke recorded that ths was his second book, namely the gospel of luke and acts, and here is the kicker, we can establish a date of 60-61 ad, as the main focus of this book of acts were peter , paul and james the half brother of jesus
a ---- james died in 62, b ------- paul died in 64, and c ------ peter died in 67 and why does not mention these three death if it was written in 68
followerofjesus1984 1 year ago
Jesus didn't want to be worshiped he said follow and stay true to god. So... "Christianity" which whorships him shouldn't exist. Also the Old Testament stated the Messiah could not be harmed for the lord would hear his cry and have angels protect him.
ColdBoi 1 year ago
For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son that we may not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
ΘΑ ΚΛΙΝΗ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΟΝΟΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ
ΠΑΝ ΓΟΝΥ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΣΑ ΓΛΩΣΣΑ ΘΑ ΟΜΟΛΟΓΗΣΗ
ΟΤΙ Ο ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ
ΕΙΣ ΔΟΞΑ ΘΕΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ
ΟΠΟΙΟΣ ΕΧΕΙ ΠΙΣΤΗ ΣΥΜΜΑΧΕΙ ΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟ ΤΟΝ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΩ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΝΤΩΝ
ifestionas1 1 year ago
The Buddha and Prophet Mohammed were also Historical Figures
kixmet 1 year ago
These two people are perpetuating the lies of the bible by telling more lies in support of it. Mathew Mark Luke & John DID NOT write the books in their name. They were written "according to", not by, which means somebody else but them wrote them. As this is common knowledge within the educated religious community, they are then by definition, liars. That's not surprising though because their other evidence to support the existence of Christ is all second hand evidence and some of it forged.
kanakaken 1 year ago
there was no letter J in those times, so who are you really following?
shaybird76 1 year ago
The infomercial-esque nature of the Q&A is really getting on my nerves. That aside, I do hope that you "sell" many copies of your DVD...
nwascorpio 1 year ago
The Josephus account is a forgery, yet they still use it. As for the Gospels, they were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John but were compiled and written by their followers. The Gospel according to John was written in stages and was completed in what is now western Turkey, about one hundred years after Jesus' death.
buddhasknowbest 1 year ago
@buddhasknowbest How then is the earliest fragment of John that exists dated to 115 AD? No one dates the NT books so late anymore. Late dating has been definitively dispoved.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner, what difference does it make. Think of it like this, how would a 20 year old in 2010 be able to write verbatim the words of a complete stranger who died in 1950? This is apparently what was done in the gospels. As for Paul's letters, they may be dated to the time directly after Christ's death however they do not include any information on the teaching of Jesus or even vague representations of his words.
BadString 1 year ago
@BadString No, it should be how would a 50 year old be able to write the words he had memorize as a young man in his 20s. It's 35 years, not 60 years.
30 AD to 65 AD.
I am 48 and I can remember all the words to "America Pie" and hundreds of other folk and rock ballads I first heard in the 70s. Memorizing these stories was much the same.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner why would someone wait 50 years to write about GOD and spreading the Gospel?! Doesnt make much sense.
ccollymore 1 year ago
Paleography actually suggests that the papyrus MS you mention was written at least in 125 CE.
generalataris 1 year ago
@generalataris Soem say as early as 70 aaad some say as late as 175. However, the majority put it in a 15 year window and 115 AD is in the middle of that window. It's also identical to the account of John we have today.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@buddhasknowbest Josephus was not a forgery. Yes, there were some interpolations, but that is not the same at all. Unless you have actual proof.
05neal 1 year ago
@05neal Actually I'd argue it has ONE omission, but no additions.
Josephus had: "He was the so-called Christ" and our later version has "He was the Christ."
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner "Actually I'd argue it has ONE omission, but no additions.
Josephus had: "He was the so-called Christ" and our later version has "He was the Christ.""
You're right but there were also additions.
05neal 1 year ago
@buddhasknowbest They have to keep using it. 2,000 years later there's no more evidence for Jesus being the savior. None of these historians mention the miracles or the raising of the dead.
MercuryRis 1 year ago
But the very sad TRUTH, is that absolutely nobody outside of the bible, can say that they walked, talked, lived etc. with the mythological Jebus character. You are very wrong. If you limit your evidence to a person that is outside of the bible that says they saw Jesus; your conversation ends up with absoulutely NOTHING. Nobody outside of the bible ever saw Jesus and wrote about it! No money for you and your church
Maber01 1 year ago
it should be considered that tacitus lived two decades after the susposed death of christ,so anything he wrote about would be second hand information.many historians feel his passage on jesus is a forgery.if in fact jesus did live and did all the things the bible says he did with multitudes of people watching him,there is no reason why history would'nt be riddled with his accounts,but there is'nt.there are only obscure,vague passages that most feel are forged
InSinGrin 1 year ago
None of this proves ANYTHING. I don't care if they find 1,000 identically written accounts of people seeing Jesus, it does not PROVE that he was real. Reading old texts that confer with each other is no basis from which to believe in the supernatural.
SubconsciousGatherer 1 year ago
@bbrr9 You should check out Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Got some good stuff as far as the historical and scientific data around Christ's claims to be the Son of God. The thing that stands out the most to me is that the early leaders of the Church, especially Peter and Paul, openly acknowledge that if Jesus had not been Resurrected, that their faith was in vain and a waste. But yet, those men and many many others who knew Christ personally willingly died for their faith.
MrShawnStarr 1 year ago
Take this issue into the ProCathedral and all the other Catholic Churches in America. Make these ghastly edifices the place for discourse and win back the schools and the kids from the cuckoo church and all its subverted secular servants and agents....
sebreathnach 1 year ago
Yup, all these prophetic themes foretoled the coming of the son of God - Yahweh / Jehovah incarnate. If the son of God was to appear at some moment in time, of course something that big would be experienced through the collective unconscious mind, which was designed and directed by God's active force, the Holy Spirit, which animates all life. These alleged parallels simly are pretexts of that coming truth. One God, and His name is Jesus Christ, as manifested in the flesh to relate the fallen.
MolokaiAlika 1 year ago
Jeus is Lord and no one will know eternal life, unless they know and worship Jesus Christ.
pablocoon 2 years ago
Ah ok, I was wondering how to do that.
OreoVII 1 year ago
Let's say Jesus existed. Let's say Jesus founded Christianity and was crucified for his "sins" against Rome and the Rabbis. Even if there were unassailable evidence for his existance-which there is not- it, in no way, would prove he was God/son of God-same thing-. It would only prove that a man existed 2,000 years ago who started a following, like many others of the time, based on his beliefs. To conclude, on no evidence, that Jesus was God, is sheer desperation.
bbrr9 2 years ago 2
One thing that proves proves Jesus is not blind faith, but the dynamic nature of faith in the lives of believers.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner what dose that even mean? that is an empty statement.
GalinorGustave 1 year ago
@jcr4runner,Good grief, what does "dynamic faith" mean if faith is defined as 'a belief NOT based on facts or proof'? If it's not a fact it's a lie therefore dynamic faith must be based on dynamic lies & the dynamic lack of proof. By the way one of the definitions of dynamic is "pertaining to a computer memory that requires periodic updates". That actually fits quite well. Are you brave enough to approve my posts?? Or shall you continue this as a one sided discussion, preaching to the converted
kanakaken 1 year ago
@jcr4runner Faith could conceivably be the product of a shared delusion, and you would never know the difference. No amount or type of faith can be evidence for anything.
Think of how convincing and real Santa Claus feels to young children.
Captain42x 1 year ago
@bbrr9
Jesus is one of the Righteous Teachers who came here to teach us the Laws of The Universe just like all the others before and after him.
DivineLight59 1 year ago
@bbrr9 Why would all 12 disciples die for their refusal to say that Jesus was a fraud ?....It makes absolutely no sense.....If you were playing along with some intricate scam and the main character was killed.....would you die to continue the scam ?......I doubt it
Jacobrester 1 year ago
Mark, Matt, Luke and John did not know the historical Jesus. The Gospels were written between 68 C.E, and 100 C.E. These people are idiots.
glennybar 2 years ago 2
Now hold on.
If Matthew, Mark or Luke wrote a Gospel by 68 AD then either they or some of the people who provided the information for their Gospels could have known Jesus. Certainly those who received and approved of the Gospel could have known Jesus.
That's only 38 years later. People lived much longer than that even in ancient times.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Some church fathers wrote that Jesus' disciple John died in the reign of Domitian (c. 96 AD).
Then John was probably a youth when Jesus died. (Let's say 16). And since many rabbinical students began their discipleship as early as age 12, this is possible.
If John's Gospel was written sometime between 70 to 90 AD, that would have made him between 56 to 76 at the time of the writing.
What is illogical about that?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner People didn't live that long back then.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@123Atheist Are you sure? The life expectancy of healthy adults was exactly the same as today -- 70 to 80 years.
jcr4runner 1 year ago
@jcr4runner I don't think so. I got the lowest average as forty. And the highest I found was 60. I doubt that people would have lived to be as old as 70 or 80. Especially without modern medicine. The life expectancy would probably be lower for more poor people too. That being said, I do believe that Jesus was a real person, but no one that met him wrote about him. That's not too surprising because the people that did meet him were probably illiterate.
123Atheist 1 year ago
@jcr4runner No it wasnt 2000 years ago a 40 year old was considered old the average age was 37. . . .That is first century levante. . .
dixon97a 1 year ago
@glennybar they knew Jesus and talked to him before his death.
DavidTheCatholic 1 year ago
@glennybar this is erroneous, the gospel were actually written between 45-60 ad
in the beggin of the book of act luke recorded that ths was his second book, namely the gospel of luke and acts, and here is the kicker, we can establish a date of 60-61 ad, as the main focus of this book of acts were peter , paul and james the half brother of jesus
a ---- james died in 62, b ------- pual died in 64, and c ------ peter died in 67 and why does not mention these three death if it was written in 68
followerofjesus1984 1 year ago
this piece starts out full of shit. jennings DID NOT admit jesus was a real person, he simply states all but the most skeptical historians accept his existence. the fact that christians have to lie constantly to support their religion should speak volumes.
BillKiernan 2 years ago
Tacitus calls Jesus "Christ" as a nickname. Not at all does Tacitus believe Jesus of Nazareth is the "Christ" which is the same as saying "Messiah". Tacitus is talking about where the name Christian came from. Also Tacitus says Christ was put to death by Pilate. Clearly Tacitus' statement about Christians proves he was not a Christian and would not hesitate to put one to death.
boblackey1 2 years ago
This is deliberately vague.
No eye witness accounts outside the bible. No quotes and no dates. Why? because to include the dates would disprove the point they're trying to make.
Despite several active holy land historians writing about the region during the supposed time of Jesus, NOT ONE mentions this man performing incredible feats, giving sermons or being persecuted.
It is only many years later when the character was created.
3rduncle 2 years ago
There were no "active holy land historians" during the time of Jesus.
In fact, there are only four historians (outside the NT writers) who wrote ANY history about the first century -- Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus and Plutarch -- 3 of 4 mention Jesus and the Christians.
It's easy to be misled by bogus material on the Internet, but if you did your own research, you would see that this is true.
There are these four and no more.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Well Tacitus calls Jesus of Nazareth by the term Christ and so do other non Christian early non Christian writers. Christ to non Christians at that time called Jesus of Nazareth by the name Christ as one would use a "nickname". Tacitus, Pliny,etc. certainly did not reguard Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ or annointed one or Messiah. Indeed, they had many Christians put to death or whipped and chained. All skeptical scholars I know of except one are certain Jesus existed as a person.
boblackey1 2 years ago
My 2 theories:
Jesus was created/made by the jews out of envy that they didn't have a son of a god, like most of the other religions have.
Or, If god -the father- is tyrannic lunatic, let's just make a more benevolent god -the son- that it can have more sympathy for us.
nimatoike 2 years ago
jesus is not god,
seawitch9496 2 years ago
Josephus was born after the supposed Christ death. Do you people understand what evidence is?
More craziness from conservative Christianity.
FoxifiedNutjob 2 years ago 2
Josephus would still have had contact with the earliest of Christians. The only craziness comes from those who want to deny all evidence which supports Jesus. Even if there was irrefutable evidence, many would still not believe.
BCPowerman 2 years ago
@BCPowerman says: "Even if there was irrefutable evidence, many would still not believe."
You are quite wrong, this is a typical attitude of believers, that already know the answer so they only need to manipulate and cheery pick the proof to support it.
It makes no difference to an atheist if Mr. Jesus existed or not, in fact most probably 95% of all atheists do believe that he did historically exist.
saintpine 2 years ago
You are confusing mental assent with efficacious faith.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner
Call it whatever you want if makes you happy, you religious people are artists with word salad and brain rape.
Even the word "truth" has no meaning to me anymore, whenever I hear someone use the word "truth" I immediately think of another religious brain masturbation.
saintpine 2 years ago
Yes, but are you absolutely sure that there is no truth?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner says "Yes, but are you absolutely sure that there is no truth?"
I'm absolutely sure there are truths, the only problem is that we don't have any absolute words to define it, the word "truth" itself has been abused in all ways possible by all religions.
For the majority of the population, truth simply means something like "faith" and we know that faith by definition is not a virtue (unlike religion would like to make you believe), because it's based on the lack of proof.
saintpine 2 years ago
So essentially you are saying you believe in truth.
You know the truth when you see it, you just can't find the words to define it.
You are certain that religion or "faith" cannot define truth.
So here's the big question: "What is truth?"
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner
It's impossible to know a truth when you see it, even though I accept there must be a truth.
The word faith (look it up in any dictionary) is by definition a belief not based on facts or proofs.
We can go towards the truth, everyone in the end finds his truth, and thus, because the truth can only be one, all the others must be wrong, so you have your truth, and all the others religions are wrong, I have my truth and yours is wrong, so in the end the word truth is useless.
saintpine 2 years ago
@jcr4runner TRUTH is that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence. And Faith by definition as before, is a belief NOT based on facts, proofs or truth. So you have faith in lies, or another way of putting it, you have blind faith in non provable facts based on lies and untruths. The ONLY proof is written in the bible & those writings are unsubstantiated. If it was brought before the law today it would fail as circumstantial evidence.
kanakaken 1 year ago
"Many well-known non-Christian historians mention Jesus"
Tacitus in his annals mentions that "Christ was crucified..."
wait a bit. how can a non Christian use the word Christ and not Jesus ?
and why not quote from the books rather than giving us an opinion what Tacitus writes ?
are you afraid we see that there is nothing much that could be classified ad "detailed desciptions".
"Evidence is overwhelming"
"Overwhelming testomonies that confirm"
"proved to be reliable"
What !!!! ?
saintpine 2 years ago
Many means the majority of histories we have available from this time period.
Compared to today's histories it is not many, but we use the word comparative to what is available from that time.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner
All these types of overwhelming testimonies and evidences wouldn't last five minutes in a court case.
And what makes it worse, every extraordinary claim needs an extraordinary proof.
It's all very naive.
saintpine 2 years ago
Apparently, the court case has lasted more than just 5 minutes.
It's 2010.
According to your definition, we must have evidence that is beyond extraordinary.
"And the word of God grew mightily and prevailed" (Acts 19:10).
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner
You have all the rights to believe any fairy tail you want, no one is going to torture you for that.
saintpine 2 years ago
Unless I was in an atheistic country like China or Cuba.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner
As usual this dishonest way of comparing a religion with a non belief proclamation.
If you carry on like this I will put you in the same category "theism", together with Islam, Hindu, African beliefs, and the Japanese emperor god.
There is no dogma or belief system in atheism, China has is social/communist/totalitarian just like a religion, the government does not support religion (just like in america)
In wikipedia I read that only 8% - 14% are atheists.
saintpine 2 years ago
I meant that the government has often enforced atheism on pain of death.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner says "I meant that the government has often enforced atheism on pain of death."
I don't understand what you mean ?, could you please elaborate.
saintpine 2 years ago
@jcr4runner
Your god punishes my thoughts, I have to believe.
I don't see any atheist dogma that declares that you must "believe" that there is no God otherwise you end up in hell.
For all I know, all atheists I know happen to be pluralists (it's not a "atheist religion" dogma, anyone can be a pluralist), so you can believe what you want, just keep your religious bulling away from me thank you.
saintpine 2 years ago
Jesus is simply one of a long-held man-made archetype; he is just the current/contemporary one. It is man's way of trying to put a face on the gods/our creators/All That Is. It doesn't make it wrong nor am I saying Jesus wasn't real or that his message wasn't important - it was. But to deny that his story was not original is to ignore a great deal of history.
skatoolaki 2 years ago
scholars don't wanna risk their credibility because they don't want bible thumpers like you whining to get them fired after they present legitimate research
Planatomy 2 years ago
Ariel has terrible lighting.
Weedleweeb 2 years ago
Individual's who are aware the the undeniable fact that this world is run by a group of Luciferian elite may come to the conclusion that the "Jesus as Myth" propaganda is created by them and spread to the masses much, like that within the popular culture and movements such as Feminism, Marxism, Fascism and Communism. They want to slowly condition the public mind to accept anti-christian values and to push forwatrd the New Age false religion. Notice how Christianity is always attacked?
BabylonFading2012 2 years ago
Dude it's not about Jesus being a myth. I'm sure most here are on the lookout for the number of the name. It's about the same story being told being told well before Jesus. Do you see the influence that Israel had on it's neightbours, particularly Egypt?
Do you see why the same story is told with the Egyptian twist of the serpent?
Do you see the truth?
Maybe, just maybe Jesus was more Buddhist than the eye for an eye.
AdeptAlbatross 2 years ago
Adept,
No, I don't see the similarities. It''s not that I don't want to. It is that I have actually studied mythology as pat of my college degree and they are not that similar beyond the kind of similarities you would expect religious stories to have.
Further, Jesus-mythists simply make up similarities that were not in the original stories.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
some of the stories of the "old jesus's" have been dated to before 500 B.C.
get your facts right..... and yes that means you facts are wrong, so dont comment back saying you are. please =)
bucketdead 2 years ago
Bucketdead,
The scholarship of the Jesus-as-myth hypothesis was soundly refuted in the 1930s. No historian holds to this. Only a few non-credentialed hacks.
There are no "old Jesus's" that predate the Gospels.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Ahhh, good to see you have college degree in spiritual things.
AdeptAlbatross 2 years ago
The Book of Revelations indicates the Beast John speaks of is Roman. It was the Romans that crucified Jesus, persecuted Christians and boiled John in oil. So we must look to the church of Rome for apostasy and we see it throughout the Catholic religion and those that pay homage to it (Protestantism). These are not the church of Jesus as they break God's laws. ie. "Sunday" keeping. Sun worship is pagan - Baal. Goes back to Babylon. And since one command is broken, they are all broken.
clarkewi 2 years ago
This is nonsense. Tacitus, for example, wrote about a HUNDRED YEARS after the supposed time of jesus.
There were PLENTY of historians and chroniclers around during the time of jesus, but NONE of them saw fit to write anything about him. That is fact more relevant to the question of the historicity of jesus than anything Tacitus could have written.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
How do you respond to the parallel Christs like simon and Apollonius?
theonlyway2truth 2 years ago
I respond by saying that any such parallels are superficial or concocted by the Jesus-as-myth promoters.
No one outside the internet takes them seriously. They are not scholars.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner - wow really. Have you not read about Mithra, Osiris and Krishna who were all dieties before Christ. Surely if you studied you would be able to see comparisons, in the internet and out, by "scholars," whatever makes one that, I'm assuming you are.
AdeptAlbatross 2 years ago
Which "scholars" think Christ was based on Mithra, Osiris and Krishna?
There are none.
And no, I am not considered a scholar. I don't have a Ph.D.
Only Internet hacks post this conspiracy theory. No one with a Ph.D. would risk their credibility to publish such nonsense.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
look up Bart D Ehrman he is a bible history teacher
bigjon1359 2 years ago
I know Bart Ehrman. Your point is?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
jc4runner: I can't speak for scholars, but it's pretty damning evidence that Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz all have an almost exact same "history" as Jesus (the virgin birth around the winter solstice, the crucifixion for the good of mankind, and the death, 3 days in hell, and resurrection around the vernal equinox). The prove is there; this is history that was around long before Internet or "Internet hacks".
skatoolaki 2 years ago
Actually every one of those "facts" is false.
None of these figures follows all of those similarities with Jesus. Not one!
The Internet hacks are those who have altered the facts to suit their hypothesis.
The Jesus-as-myth hypothesis was proposed about 100 years ago and was refuted int he 1930s. The proposed "similarities" were the result of very bad scholarship on the part of the promoters. But now internet hacks just recycle the errors.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Corrections the first followers of jesus were not christians actually christians as such became in existence 200 years after his death his first followers were jewish and they didnt believe that he was God christanity as such is a counterfeit religion created with political purposes, its base belief is a pagan egyptian myth
SuperAlexrios 2 years ago 2
The disciples were first called "Christians" In Antioch in about 40 AD.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I'm an atheist and even I believe jesus existed. Just don't believe in god or he did miracles.
DoomNoMore 2 years ago 7
What about Celsius,
the one who wrote about jesus and his true father
the leigionaire pantera.
kapachangos 2 years ago
Celsus (not "Celsius") set out to discredit Jesus. He claimed He was not the one true God. He admitted Jesus did miracles, but He learned how to do magic because He was an Egyptian magician and attacked His character. Celsus was refuted by the church father Origen.
Christianity weathered many, many attacks from pagans in the early centuries. These pagans believed in gods and miracles themselves, but they did not want to accept Jesus.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
jc4runner: Of course they didn't want to accept Jesus! They had their own religions, and Christianity was shoved down a lot of their throats. Christianity was the new kid on the block, and people who had believed & worshipped other ways for centuries weren't very keen on suddenly switching because yet another deity had popped up - this one, his followers claim, to be "the one and only". Early pagans had trouble wrapping their minds around a monotheistic deity for obvious reasons.
skatoolaki 2 years ago
In and out actually. And I am not worried about speaking good english, just as long as you get my point. So In doctrinized and Out doctrinized.
shuncharon 2 years ago
Just remember that words mean things, so the words you use are important.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
So are pictures which words are derived from. Heiroglyphics was the first words as pictures. It is the true language. Metu neter or heiroglyphics from Egypt/Kemet were what words are to us now and all words come from pictures or ones perspective of a thing, etc... All religions connect to Ancient Egypt because of this. Heru was Jesus of Ancient Kema'at/Egypt. Look it up or be afraid to know. Or just deny!
shuncharon 2 years ago
I find it hard to believe that people actually agree with Christianity. It is nothing more than a farce developed politically in order to control society. I mean first they claim their "savior" is god himself. Then they say if you don't believe in their religion you'll be sent to a place of fire, and pain and torture where you'll suffer forever. I would really like for someone to explain to me why Christianity is so similar to all other pagan religions before it.
Areyoufunkadelic 2 years ago 2
Tha name Jesus was decreed in 325 ad by council of nicea, it is a fake name that has no relation to an ancient language name. You people are bible school blind. Its just like public school, they doctrinize you.
shuncharon 2 years ago
man your on so on thank you for your wiisdom,,,,, they are blind ,,,,and dumb . did
npf2135 2 years ago
They may have "doctrinized" you, but they didn't teach you much about the English language!
It's "indoctrinate."
I apologize if you are not an English speaker.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Well, actually...hahahahahahahahaha! Oh, I'm...I'm sorry, I couldn't control myself. I haven't laughed that hard since I was a little girl. Thank you. Maybe next time you should read one of these things that we call books first before you just start throwing out crazy talk like that. Wow, simply stunning. Unbelievable.
swingman24 2 years ago
it's funny how all of the historians you mention weren't born until 70+ years after jesus' death, so how can they truly record the history of jesus if they weren't even alive during his lifetime?
TaylorMoria 2 years ago
That would also exclude records of some Roman Emperors and Alexander the Great since their extant histories were not written for 100 to 400 years after their lifetimes.
The history of Jesus began during his lifetime. An oral tradition was cultivated by his Apostles in the 30s and 40s and we see Christian literature very early -- at least by 55 AD and perhaps as early as 40 AD.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
it's funny how Tiberius died in 37AD and his biography was written in 114AD but still people believe he was real... so how can they truly record the history of Tiberius if they were probably not even alive during his lifetime??? if they were born in his lifetime they still would have been small children when he died ...
jazzabelle07 2 years ago
Agreed. The historicity of Jesus isn't disputed among credentialed historians -- only by a few hack writers and on websites.
Its not a credible idea and that is why I dont waste time arguing.
If they want to post the Jesus-myth fallacy here, they have to meet one of two challenges.
1. Name one writer who claimed Jesus never existed prior to 1800.
2. Name five PhDs teaching history at the university level that teach this today.
Otherwise they must post their nonsense somewhere else.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
thank you so much ... i'll remember that for next time a friend/colleage or what ever tries to argue this point!!
jazzabelle07 2 years ago
Tacitus didn't write anything about christ until the 2nd century. I don't see that as convincing evidence. He would had to get his information from christians who could only repeat what they are told. Pliny the Younger didn't live at the time of chirst so he also ony could write what christians told him to. Pliny the Elder did live at the time of christ but didn't write anything about christ. What good does it do to list historians who lived after christ?
kingmike40 2 years ago
Only three Roman historians wrote anything about the first century Palestine that survives today -- Livy, Suetonus and Tacitus.
Of the three, two mention Christians and Jesus.
Seeing that Jesus was an important figure, that is about what we should expect.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Don't you find it odd that the two historians who wrote about christ didn't live at the time he did, but the one historian who did live at the time of christ didn't write anything. Livy lived until BC17 so he could have wrote about the birth and early childhood. A king felt threatened by the birth and three man came to see the newborn so people supposedly knew about jesus but the historians didn't write anything.
kingmike40 2 years ago
No, I don't find it odd that Livy would not write about Jesus.
The history of Herod is one of the massacres of thousands of people including family members. He was in constant fear of a usurper. A few dozen infants in Bethlehem was a blip in the list.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
You people just refuse to face reality. I wasn't talking about Livy not writing about just any infant. If the wise man knew of the birth of jesus and herod know about the birth of the so called savior than why didn't any historian.
kingmike40 2 years ago 2
Of the three other historians writing about the first century, Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus, all three mention Jesus.
They don't give every detail of his life, just a few facts.
But what OTHER HISTORIANS are you talking about?
There are not any that we know of that have surviving works.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Typical liars ... The only person who actually lived who wrote anything about the time of Jesus was Philo and he wrote about Pilate's actions against the Jews but does not mention Jesus or The Baptist ... Every other person who wrote about this Jesus or The Baptist in either the New Testament or Roman History were not eyewitnesses and in every case were not even born at the time of this supposed messiah .
dfnewburry 2 years ago
Philo is not a historian of the first century. He wrote mainly allegorical expositions on the books of Moses especially Genesis.
Philo mentions the tyranny of Pilate in a letter he delivered to Caesar Caius Caligula. This is not an exhaustive history of Pilate but deals with ONE incident.
While it is true that ANYONE in the first century COULD have written about Jesus (as Pliny writing to Trajan did) it's unreasonable to assume that someone not writing history of would need to mention Him.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Pliny the younger didn't write about jesus but about the chirstians acting wild and being thrown out of rome. Pliny the elder did live at the time of christ and Pliny the elder didn't write anything about jesus.
kingmike40 2 years ago
Pliny's letter to Trajan inquires whether Christians should be punished for worshiping Christ as a god.
"... they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom ... to assemble again to partake of food.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
You admit that Philo was the only one writing anything in the time of Jesus. That is true. As I said, Philo did not write a history of Palestine or the Roman Empire. It's hard to find anything in the narrow time of 26 to 30 AD.
What we know about the Roman Empire comes mainly from 3 people who all were writing in the 2nd century. We know about 1st century Palestine from (only bits of Philo) and Josephus' two histories -- and of course the early Christian writings which corroborate all of this.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Read The Talmud of Jmmanuel. Google search for the PDF. It is the true account of the man the council of Nicaea needed to conceal. Its a FIRSTHAND account of the being that came to earth to wake humanity up to who we really are! Penned byJudas Iscariot! He wasnt his betrayer but his FRIEND. Isa Rashid translated 36 chapters from the original four scrolls before he was assassinated for his efforts! The Holy Bible/Sun Book was created to keep the real truth from the masses not reveal it! Enjoy.
formerassassin 2 years ago
They accuse others of not mentioning everything but they fail to do so themselves : Josephus' writings have been suspected of being subjected to interpolations by the hands of christians, and this suspicion is supported by heavy philological studies.
Karakta 2 years ago
Whatever it is the christians are suspected to have added to the writings of Josephus is irrelevant since the writings contain nothing to promote the divinity of Jesus. What the writings do however point to is the fact that a historical figure called Jesus did actually exist, at least even the critics agree on this point.
sampamog 2 years ago
Thanks for putting it in perspective.
The controversy over Josephus' longer passage is over whether he could have written things like: "He was the Christ" and "was a doer of wonders" and so on, because it would make him seem like a Christian believer.
Only a few Josephus exerts think the entire so-called "longer passage" was interpolated. The vast majority of scholars agree that Josephus knew something about Jesus and the Christian movement as attested to three places in his writings.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
whats the name of the song that starts playing at 0:45? please, i really love that song!!!
skarlinx 2 years ago
argh, you can't just say "there's so many sources that actually back up what's recorded in the New Testament" and then not look at any of them in depth; you can't just gloss over this stuff, make a blanket statement like that and then move on - how is this supposed to be convincing at all?!
Grambo4 2 years ago
This video isn't an in depth study, it's an introductory look that gives the basic sources.
Most people have never heard of Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, etc.
Fewer have actually read them. Now they have its up to the viewers to go and read them for themselves.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Yep, so introductory that they even "forget" to mention the controversies around these sources amongst philologists.
Karakta 2 years ago
A "philologist" is someone who studies the development of languages. What are you talking about?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Don't tell me you actually ignore that philology is a HUGE tool in historical critics ? How do you think scholars discovered that Luke and Matthew copied Marc and the Q source ?
Karakta 2 years ago
I think you are meaning to use the terms "form criticism" and "source criticism" -- while philology can include textual criticism, it is a broader field.
The problem with the Higher Critics is that they pretend to read between the lines of the text while they deny the documentary evidence and external testimony right in front of their eyes.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
I don't hold to Marcan priority or the "Q" hypothesis. The patristic testimony is of independence and early authorship (all Gospels were completed in their final form by 40 to 65 AD) using a common oral source.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
this is a pretty poor attempt at proving the historical Jesus. I'm a Cristian, so I don't need these two people to convince me, but this was a really sloppy job. When talking about historical documentation of Jesus, they make it seem like there's SO many non-Christians writing all sorts of info about him. That's not the case. And the Church fathers who wrote about him were not contemporary to him, and thus don't prove the point that these two people are trying to make.
Grambo4 2 years ago
The Apostles were contemporaries of Jesus and the church fathers were contemporaries of the Apostles.
We see the last NT books written about 67 -70 AD and then the first writings of the church fathers appear in the late first century.
Then by the second century there is an explosion of writings by apologists who had a connection with the church fathers.
It would be akin to you recording info on your great grandfather.
The transmission of the Gospels and the NT is very well pedigreed.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
all i have to say is....it's better to live your life like there is a God and in the end find out there is not God than to live life like there is no God and find out in the end there is!
chiquita099 2 years ago
it's BEST to live your own life, without any "higher powers" controlling you at all, without any fear of death and what's after. I can tell you right now what's gonna happend. You live your life, die, rot, and you will turn into dirt. You will feed the plants and maybe spawn a tree. People should worship tree's instead of god imo... it makes more sense, and I could respect people for loving trees. Religion on the other hand, is just wrong in every way.
kholdheart666 2 years ago
Thats just fearmonging.
YouImposter 2 years ago
chiquita099:
You have posed Pascal's Wager.
Go look it up and you will find out just how flaw that arguemnt is.
First off, there is a whole lot wrong with living life like there is a god.
And, what if the god you worship is the wrong one - you get to heaven and you are met by Thor or Zeus or Ra or any number of other gods.
I bet they he is gonna be far more pissed with xians than with atheists.
MrShavedMonkey 2 years ago 2
I like your answer.
Arcane1Soldier 2 years ago
There is evidence for the existence of Joshua, whom the jews rejected as their Messiah. Thre is NO evidence for the salvation story.. NONE>
Why would the jewish scholars, contemporaries of Jesus, versed in the Torah and the prophecies, reject him as their Messiah. There is no reasonable explanation but one NO EVIDENCE the prophecies applied to that person Joshua.
Philos2006 2 years ago
Why would the Jews reject Jesus? Read Isaiah 6:9-13.
familybc146 2 years ago
The sniff at 2:07 is hilarious
porfavormeudeus 2 years ago
As I said previously, the girl in this video is an embarassment. Other religions are not based on historical figures?!? Judaism must be, otherwise Christianity would be a sham! Mohammed and Siddharta (Buddha) are not historical figures? The Hindu scriptures (The Rig Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita) are wonderful, & much older than The Bible. Moreover, like Zoroastrianism, they reinforce the tenets of Christianity. You're not gonna do Christianity any favours by putting down other creeds
kidcalabria 2 years ago