Cont.... just to add a small detail to my earlier comment - This clip starts with reference to 'Jesus Of Nazareth' but the town Nazareth did not exist at the purported time of Jesus and is likely a mistranslation of Nazarene which suggests something else entirely.
In English translations of the New Testament, the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears seventeen times where the Greek literally means "Jesus the Nazarene" or "Jesus the Nazoraean"
Not sure why - but I'm looking at vids about Jesus - maybe because I recently read a book by someone purporting to have been 'taken over' by him to such an extent that people watching claimed this to be the case... hmm? This is the only clip I've come across that has not disabled comments so I can say that the notion of him being 'special' is a very old idea indeed and that if he was - so what? What does that prove? And what does the word 'god' mean anyway? A projection of a father complex?
Nice presentation,but not a shred of evidence.Flavius Josephus was a general not a historian.He is the one who tells a bit about Christ,not much just like the rest.It's in Tony Busby's trilogy (The bible fraud,The crucifixion of truth & another title ) We got brainwashed by Roman Christianity & it may go deeper this rabbit hole of religion.I wish I could say that Christ is a real historical figure but unfortunately my mind has to much reason to doubt.( e.g. No cocks allowed in Jerusalem then )
Many prophecies are "fulfilled" by the simple expedient of inventing and writing a fulfillment that never happened in fact. An example is Matthew 2:13-15, which has Jesus as a child being hauled off to Egypt to escape the "slaughter of the innocents". Neither the move to Egypt nor the slaughter ever took place. Matthew wrote this lie to be able to say "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." " No other gospel or history records this.
huh all of your so-called non-biblical historians did NOT live during the time of jesus, so they were NOT eye witness accounts. also josephus supposed writings were proven to be forgeries by the same scholars you claim to quote..
many of these authors didnt write anything until their later years in which case most of the supposed jesus writings were nearly 100 years after jesus supposed death.
thats like taking the letter my mom wrote last night and uising it as evidence for jesus.
So basically, you're saying it was determined as truth because a bunch of men voted on it with no outside miracle or prophecy from God. Yeah, thats sounds about right....
Lets just say hypothetically those 4 accounts are "the word of God", how then, do you reconcile the fact that they constantly contradict themselves? Is God the author of confusion?
No I am saying that it was determined as truth long before Constantine, it was just codified at his time. Regarding the contradictions, I can hardly address them if you don't air them specifically yes?
Well, there are dozens of them but here is one specifically, why does John say Jesus was crucified on the Day of Preparation, yet the other 3 state he was crucified after the Passover. They can't all be correct.
LOL what are you talking about? They all call the day of Crucifixion as the "day of preparation" that is the day before the sabbath (in this case passover). None say that Christ died after passover. Passage please?
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus eats the Passover meal with his disciples. In John, Jesus is killed on the Day of Prep and has a last supper. However, the "Last Supper" is not the passover as when Judas runs out to betray Jesus after the meal, his disciples assume he is going to buy supplies for the Passover.
Luke 22:14 clearly shows him eating the Passover, and John 19:14 clearly shows Jesus about to be crucified on the Day of Preparation.
This is a contradiction that can not be reconciled.
Part 1 Luke 22:14 essentially has Jesus saying to his disciples that he would like to eat the passover Seder with them but he is going to be killed before he has a chance. Moreover the description of the last supper doesn't follow the details of a Seder ritual.
To farther clarify my take on Luke 22:14 later in that gospel Luke calls the day that Jesus' body is laid in Joseph's tomb (ie he has already been crucified) as the day of preparation, or before passover. Luke 23:50-54, Mark 15:42-47,Matthew 27:62
Wow, shows how much you know the Bible! Now you're in danger of hell, pity. See Matthew 5:22 for details.
Tell me this, why are there over 30 gospel accounts of Jesus yet only 4 our in the Bible? Is that reliable evidence? Where in the Bible does it say a bunch of men will get together in Nicea 300 years after Jesus dies and vote which documents are the "word of God" and which are not.
Lob a softball expect a homerun. The 4 gospel accounts in the cannon were recognized as the oldest, and the only four with an apostolic pedigree. By comparrison the accounts supported by Arius of Alexandria were known as written long after the four and without the same apostolic pedigree. Every Christian Bishop in the known world was invited and they voted overwhelmingly to codify what most every Christian at the time already regarded as the best manuscripts available. Not hard Einstein.
I never claimed as much Philos, but what I do claim is that I never issue another's idea as the sum of my own argument as you have. IE, had I a problem with a particular video I may use a quote as a supplement to my argument but never as my argument. You have simply let someone-else do your thinking, and tried to sound lofty in the doing.
"It is always a telling thing when one is so vacuous of thought that he must employ the words of another as cover for his own inadequacy." gnosisandlight said.
Lets analyze yes? The term historian implies something right? That the person in question is generally addressing things that came before himself, right? Now re-read your post and see if you can get those wheels turning a bit. Honestly there is a place called school, they teach you stuff there. Take a class called h-i-s-t-o-r-y. ps I spaced the letters for your benefit. Sound it out..good job.
"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
I have been tossing that idea around. I will do it but it is a big project. I will probably make a video just explaining the issue, and then proceeding vids regarding the specific deities and some of the problems with the claims. You would like to see something like that?
Right. That part is questionable. But that represents an addition to an existing reference, not necessarily a added reference. To boot Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The second time in conjunction with his brother James. The second has little to be questioned. BTW Josephus was a Sadducee not a pharisee.
Correction. He was born a Sadducee, and became a pharisee later on. Of course the writers of the Talmud were not fans of Jesus either but mentioned Him several times.
The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum by Josephus has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that is was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century, the controversy will probably never be resolved.
There definitely is controversy concerning the text we are discussing, but given the desire to find a way to harm Christianity even the most dependable document would be found to be questionable. To boot, as I said before, there is another mention with far fewer issues, that isn't all that problematic.
I would dispute that AC. The posited similarities with Christ and others have been manipulated to seem more alike than they are. Terms like resurrection and salvation, and other Christian words are co-opted to lend a false sense of similarity. I did my master's thesis on this subject, and found little to recommend the small similarities.
Why are some of the atheists so against Jesus being a real person? I'm an atheist and I can see that "Jesus" was probably a real person at some point in history. But much like King Arthur. Sure, Jesus was probably a great person but all the legends and myths surrounding him are extremelly exaggerated and mostly fiction. Nobody ever lived that defy all the laws of nature, there is no evidence for it whatsoever. However, there is at least circumstantial evidence for a historical "Jesus".
Good video gnosis... as far as this exchange, the antitheist, when asking for historical evidence is GIVEN extra-biblical evidence of His existance, then taking that OBJECTIVE evidence, makes subjective assertions. It hard for them to say they've been proven wrong. And here I go thinking that the rationally/scientifically minded examined EVIDENCE in a non predjudiced manner. My bad.
exactly right brother. They moan about needing evidence and when it is presented, they invent reasons to dismiss it. Heads I win tails you lose. No truth seeking at all.
Awesome. Then you can establish that right? I have given a non biased source for what I claimed, now you do the same. Find a source which declares that "few' historians think Jesus was a guy in history. I'll wait.
No. I challenge YOU to provide even ONE non-Biblical reference to Jesus that was recorded DURING his supposed lifetime. If this man was such a threat to to Jews and Romans that he was crucified, there should be a record. The Romans kept pretty good records. I'll wait.
So in other words there is no validity to your argument at all, while mine has evidence to support it as well as the historical method
Your personal requirements are superfluous to establish the historical personage of Jesus. But you on the other hand have offered an argument that you simply cut of of whole cloth. To sum it up I have given accurate history and argumentation, and you have simply blustered.
Golly. I'm floored. Let's see. Walking on water.... feeding multitudes... raising people from the dead... changing water to wine... himself rising from the dead. don't you think that would have generated some... er... buzz?
I repeat: provide even ONE non-Biblical reference to Jesus that was recorded DURING his supposed lifetime.
I am only trying to establish the historical existence of the guy named Jesus, not his miracles. But for the sake of the argument. There is no inconsistency in saying that a miracle worker would not have illicited tons of people writing about him. At this time there were lots of stories of miraculous events, the ones committed by Jesus wouldn't have been as big as it would be now. Also there could have been documents from his lifetime that no longer exist today. History is hard on papyrus.
"don't you think that would have generated some... er... buzz?" Of course it would have the folks would just tune into CNN or surf the web, and the media firestorm would have been like OJ on trial. LOL This might shock you but news travelled slowly or not at all at that time "buzz" was not a given. LOL
BTW lots of people were crucified during that time with no documentation of those people. In fact almost nobody existed in ancient times using your childish standard. Did Rome have inhabitants? Not by your argument.
LOL! Look, you seem like a reasonable person who is pretty good-natured. I really don't care to argue with you, and I have much better things to do than debate Jesus' existence (or not). Therefore, I wish you well and adieu!
Great video
FeignofCordor 7 months ago
Cont.... just to add a small detail to my earlier comment - This clip starts with reference to 'Jesus Of Nazareth' but the town Nazareth did not exist at the purported time of Jesus and is likely a mistranslation of Nazarene which suggests something else entirely.
zthetha 1 year ago
@zthetha
In English translations of the New Testament, the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears seventeen times where the Greek literally means "Jesus the Nazarene" or "Jesus the Nazoraean"
FeignofCordor 7 months ago
@FeignofCordor Just so... nice few bars of oud intro ...
zthetha 7 months ago
Not sure why - but I'm looking at vids about Jesus - maybe because I recently read a book by someone purporting to have been 'taken over' by him to such an extent that people watching claimed this to be the case... hmm? This is the only clip I've come across that has not disabled comments so I can say that the notion of him being 'special' is a very old idea indeed and that if he was - so what? What does that prove? And what does the word 'god' mean anyway? A projection of a father complex?
zthetha 1 year ago
Nice presentation,but not a shred of evidence.Flavius Josephus was a general not a historian.He is the one who tells a bit about Christ,not much just like the rest.It's in Tony Busby's trilogy (The bible fraud,The crucifixion of truth & another title ) We got brainwashed by Roman Christianity & it may go deeper this rabbit hole of religion.I wish I could say that Christ is a real historical figure but unfortunately my mind has to much reason to doubt.( e.g. No cocks allowed in Jerusalem then )
Ace4Tree1 1 year ago
Overwhelming?
I wish people would do some research before creating videos like this.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
Jeebus came once, as the son of Mary, was killed, had his "second coming" when he was resurrected. I don't recall hearing about a "third coming".
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
Pretty pictures, no substance. Usual shite. Pity. Expected more.
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
huh all of your so-called non-biblical historians did NOT live during the time of jesus, so they were NOT eye witness accounts. also josephus supposed writings were proven to be forgeries by the same scholars you claim to quote..
many of these authors didnt write anything until their later years in which case most of the supposed jesus writings were nearly 100 years after jesus supposed death.
thats like taking the letter my mom wrote last night and uising it as evidence for jesus.
PsychoSymantic 2 years ago
So basically, you're saying it was determined as truth because a bunch of men voted on it with no outside miracle or prophecy from God. Yeah, thats sounds about right....
Lets just say hypothetically those 4 accounts are "the word of God", how then, do you reconcile the fact that they constantly contradict themselves? Is God the author of confusion?
bellyofadolphin 3 years ago
No I am saying that it was determined as truth long before Constantine, it was just codified at his time. Regarding the contradictions, I can hardly address them if you don't air them specifically yes?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
Well, there are dozens of them but here is one specifically, why does John say Jesus was crucified on the Day of Preparation, yet the other 3 state he was crucified after the Passover. They can't all be correct.
bellyofadolphin 3 years ago
LOL what are you talking about? They all call the day of Crucifixion as the "day of preparation" that is the day before the sabbath (in this case passover). None say that Christ died after passover. Passage please?
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus eats the Passover meal with his disciples. In John, Jesus is killed on the Day of Prep and has a last supper. However, the "Last Supper" is not the passover as when Judas runs out to betray Jesus after the meal, his disciples assume he is going to buy supplies for the Passover.
Luke 22:14 clearly shows him eating the Passover, and John 19:14 clearly shows Jesus about to be crucified on the Day of Preparation.
This is a contradiction that can not be reconciled.
bellyofadolphin 3 years ago
Part 1 Luke 22:14 essentially has Jesus saying to his disciples that he would like to eat the passover Seder with them but he is going to be killed before he has a chance. Moreover the description of the last supper doesn't follow the details of a Seder ritual.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
To farther clarify my take on Luke 22:14 later in that gospel Luke calls the day that Jesus' body is laid in Joseph's tomb (ie he has already been crucified) as the day of preparation, or before passover. Luke 23:50-54, Mark 15:42-47,Matthew 27:62
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
Wow, shows how much you know the Bible! Now you're in danger of hell, pity. See Matthew 5:22 for details.
Tell me this, why are there over 30 gospel accounts of Jesus yet only 4 our in the Bible? Is that reliable evidence? Where in the Bible does it say a bunch of men will get together in Nicea 300 years after Jesus dies and vote which documents are the "word of God" and which are not.
Good luck with that one!
bellyofadolphin 3 years ago
Lob a softball expect a homerun. The 4 gospel accounts in the cannon were recognized as the oldest, and the only four with an apostolic pedigree. By comparrison the accounts supported by Arius of Alexandria were known as written long after the four and without the same apostolic pedigree. Every Christian Bishop in the known world was invited and they voted overwhelmingly to codify what most every Christian at the time already regarded as the best manuscripts available. Not hard Einstein.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
I used to be a Christian until I watched this video. I never knew how poor the evidence was for Jesus.
Thanks for opening my eyes!
bellyofadolphin 3 years ago
I am sure you used to be a fool as well . . . unfortunately there was no de-conversion regarding that position I see.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
I never claimed as much Philos, but what I do claim is that I never issue another's idea as the sum of my own argument as you have. IE, had I a problem with a particular video I may use a quote as a supplement to my argument but never as my argument. You have simply let someone-else do your thinking, and tried to sound lofty in the doing.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
"It is always a telling thing when one is so vacuous of thought that he must employ the words of another as cover for his own inadequacy." gnosisandlight said.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
Oh wtf... come on. You're claiming historians who were born 30-60 years after the claimed death of Jesus as reliable accounts? Bullshit.
devikkyrn 4 years ago
Lets analyze yes? The term historian implies something right? That the person in question is generally addressing things that came before himself, right? Now re-read your post and see if you can get those wheels turning a bit. Honestly there is a place called school, they teach you stuff there. Take a class called h-i-s-t-o-r-y. ps I spaced the letters for your benefit. Sound it out..good job.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
I dunno, clapping out those three syllables may throw the man for a loop...
scribe7580 3 years ago
Wikipedia isn't valid....and its the first quote of your video...
Kempdog 4 years ago
Actually the quote from the wik is itself a quote from an historian.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
Name please?
Kempdog 4 years ago
"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
So put THAT in your video, not WIKI.
But good to know, thanks
Kempdog 4 years ago
I have been tossing that idea around. I will do it but it is a big project. I will probably make a video just explaining the issue, and then proceeding vids regarding the specific deities and some of the problems with the claims. You would like to see something like that?
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
Convert to what? He was never a Christian himself. He was always Jewish.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
Not only that, he belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, which we all know Jesus wasn´t a big friend of.
So why should Josephus write that Jesus was the messiah when he never converted?
I think that is one argument why his accounts shound be questioned.
DeletedDelusion 4 years ago
Right. That part is questionable. But that represents an addition to an existing reference, not necessarily a added reference. To boot Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The second time in conjunction with his brother James. The second has little to be questioned. BTW Josephus was a Sadducee not a pharisee.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
Correction. He was born a Sadducee, and became a pharisee later on. Of course the writers of the Talmud were not fans of Jesus either but mentioned Him several times.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
Well Josephus was a pretty reliable historian who mentioned Him twice. One with additions one without. But Tacitus is a good source as well.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum by Josephus has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that is was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century, the controversy will probably never be resolved.
I wouldn´t call that reliable.
DeletedDelusion 4 years ago
You wouldn't call it reliable because you offered a strawman version.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
What strawmen? Are you claiming there was never any controversy about the Testimonium Flavianum?
DeletedDelusion 4 years ago
There definitely is controversy concerning the text we are discussing, but given the desire to find a way to harm Christianity even the most dependable document would be found to be questionable. To boot, as I said before, there is another mention with far fewer issues, that isn't all that problematic.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
The desire to harm christianity?
Well, I think everything should be questioned, no matter what it is. If some thing is devine it should withstand scrutiny without any problem.
DeletedDelusion 4 years ago
I would dispute that AC. The posited similarities with Christ and others have been manipulated to seem more alike than they are. Terms like resurrection and salvation, and other Christian words are co-opted to lend a false sense of similarity. I did my master's thesis on this subject, and found little to recommend the small similarities.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
Why are some of the atheists so against Jesus being a real person? I'm an atheist and I can see that "Jesus" was probably a real person at some point in history. But much like King Arthur. Sure, Jesus was probably a great person but all the legends and myths surrounding him are extremelly exaggerated and mostly fiction. Nobody ever lived that defy all the laws of nature, there is no evidence for it whatsoever. However, there is at least circumstantial evidence for a historical "Jesus".
inthisholyreality 4 years ago
Good video gnosis... as far as this exchange, the antitheist, when asking for historical evidence is GIVEN extra-biblical evidence of His existance, then taking that OBJECTIVE evidence, makes subjective assertions. It hard for them to say they've been proven wrong. And here I go thinking that the rationally/scientifically minded examined EVIDENCE in a non predjudiced manner. My bad.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
exactly right brother. They moan about needing evidence and when it is presented, they invent reasons to dismiss it. Heads I win tails you lose. No truth seeking at all.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
"biblical scholars and historians accept the historical existence of Jesus"
THEOLOGIANS accept the existance of Jesus. Few HISTORIANS do because of an absolute absence of historical EVIDENCE re: Jesus
Antitheistguy 4 years ago
Awesome. Then you can establish that right? I have given a non biased source for what I claimed, now you do the same. Find a source which declares that "few' historians think Jesus was a guy in history. I'll wait.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
No. I challenge YOU to provide even ONE non-Biblical reference to Jesus that was recorded DURING his supposed lifetime. If this man was such a threat to to Jews and Romans that he was crucified, there should be a record. The Romans kept pretty good records. I'll wait.
Antitheistguy 4 years ago
So in other words there is no validity to your argument at all, while mine has evidence to support it as well as the historical method
Your personal requirements are superfluous to establish the historical personage of Jesus. But you on the other hand have offered an argument that you simply cut of of whole cloth. To sum it up I have given accurate history and argumentation, and you have simply blustered.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
Golly. I'm floored. Let's see. Walking on water.... feeding multitudes... raising people from the dead... changing water to wine... himself rising from the dead. don't you think that would have generated some... er... buzz?
I repeat: provide even ONE non-Biblical reference to Jesus that was recorded DURING his supposed lifetime.
Antitheistguy 4 years ago
I am only trying to establish the historical existence of the guy named Jesus, not his miracles. But for the sake of the argument. There is no inconsistency in saying that a miracle worker would not have illicited tons of people writing about him. At this time there were lots of stories of miraculous events, the ones committed by Jesus wouldn't have been as big as it would be now. Also there could have been documents from his lifetime that no longer exist today. History is hard on papyrus.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
"don't you think that would have generated some... er... buzz?" Of course it would have the folks would just tune into CNN or surf the web, and the media firestorm would have been like OJ on trial. LOL This might shock you but news travelled slowly or not at all at that time "buzz" was not a given. LOL
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
BTW lots of people were crucified during that time with no documentation of those people. In fact almost nobody existed in ancient times using your childish standard. Did Rome have inhabitants? Not by your argument.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
LOL! Look, you seem like a reasonable person who is pretty good-natured. I really don't care to argue with you, and I have much better things to do than debate Jesus' existence (or not). Therefore, I wish you well and adieu!
Antitheistguy 4 years ago
You as well man. Regards.
gnosisandlight 4 years ago
You open with a fallacious statement.... supported by the wick. One star, and only made it to 1:00 in....
Antitheistguy 4 years ago
Ok. What was the fallacious statement?
gnosisandlight 4 years ago