Im no christian, but anyone who has studied any history knows that there is at the very least overwhelming evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus..
@Kesky16 Which is funny because everything about this bloke comes from second century accounts. There is nothing in the first century about him. Clement, Ignatius, and Josephus are all forgories. So where is this overwhelming evidence at?
@danieljliversLXXXIX The passage in Flavius Josephus' Antiquities that concerns Jesus is not a forgery. It has partial authenticity. Most historians agree that its core is authentic. It is only fringe scholars who argue full forgery. Christian copyists added interpolations to the passage. However, there is a 10th century Syrian copy that has the original, unaltered version. We have the documents of Ignatius, Origen, and Clement of Rome. Those definitely are not forgeries.
@StAugustine79 Since there's no way of knowing what parts are genuine and what parts are not it's still useless. Also Josephus wrote at the end of the first century, sixty years after this event. He also wouldn't say what he did about Jesus being the true Messiah (being a Jew and also stating that Vespasian was the true Messiah.) No Christian apologist in the first centuries ever mentions it. Even Origen, (who uses a different passage), says that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.
@StAugustine79 Having a copy from the tenth century isn't going to help the case. The letters of Ignatius and Clement (besides one, which is still doubted) are considered "pseudo-epigraphs," which is a more friendly way of saying forgeries. I never mentioned anything about Origen. And where is this business of "fringe" scholars coming from? Anyone who says anything not status quo is fringe now? Even respected Christian biblical scholars are still critical of the passage.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Most of the accounts that Josephus mentioned are not comtemporary, yet there is corroborative historical evidence to support them. Josephus' account of the destruction of the Temple and the Roman-Jewish War. The part that you mentioned of Josephus calling Jesus the Messiah was a later interpolation. The main core is authentic since the other passage of Josephus mentioning James and John the Baptist is authentic in connection with Jesus is authentic.
@StAugustine79 What is this main core? If one part is interpolated then it casts doubt on the validity of the rest. We're not talking about the destruction of the temple or the relations between Jews and Romans. And as far as the passage with John the Baptised is concern, not only is there suspicion on this as well but it is irrelavnt to the historicity of Jesus; and the passage about James is refering to another Jesus all together.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Many many biographies and chronicles in the ancient world were not contemporary or primary sources, yet they are closest we have to the actual events. Thucydides' Pelopponesian War and Herodotus' Histories were written long after the events they describe yet they are authentic. Alexander the Great's biographer wrote centuries after his death.
@StAugustine79 Historians don't just rely on textual information, and there is nothing out side the few scriblings of second century historians (whom only refer to Christians and a vauge Christus figure) to support anything the NT has about this Jesus Christ. This is a common trick Apologists try to use, but there are different standards when relating figures in these texts in to reality. And there is nothing historical (not even possible) about Jesus.
@danieljliversLXXXIX No, my friend im sorry that is not a trick. I am using the same historical methods applied to anything else. Claiming that there is "nothing historical or even possible" about Jesus is just an assertion. You did not mention the Gospels themselves, the letters of Paul written closer to the events (reference 1 Corinthians 15, which has the core creed of the Church). There is no indication the Gospel writers were writing fiction, but history.
@StAugustine79 First, I'm not your friend. Second, it is a trick. A common trick used by Apologists to down play everything else of history if their precious Jesus isn't real. There no historical bearings with the Christ story and everything thing about it reeks of myth. (Virgin birth? Ressurection? Mystical healings? These thing don't occure in our world). The assertion is that he existed. As for Paul, he didn't imply a historical Christ but one revealed only through revelation.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Well your condescension and antagonistic attitude is unwarranted. Unfortunately this is all too common among those who object to christianity. I wish you the best.
@StAugustine79 Cry me a river. Your false piety, holier-than-thou smugness and prosectution complex is common amongst those who accept this death cult called Christianity.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Plus, there is no historical explanation for the emergence of the early church if in fact Jesus was not a real figure. It is historically impossible that the Church risked their lives for a fictional figure. They would not have grown exponentially, having thousands upon thousands of converts on a daily basis if that were true, especially given the fact that at the very beginning there were no "fabricated Gospels." The Sanhedrin and the Romans would have exposed them.
@StAugustine79 If Dionysus wasn't a real figure (as you told me yourself) then where did his Mysteries come from? This is just more misconceptions about how the chruch rose to power, which was politcal. What you have here is a fringe Jewish sect slowly gaining the upper hand while mingling with the Hellenized cultures until they dominated the whole political spectrum in Rome. It wasn't as fast as you say. It was a slow and violant process . You need to return to the drawing board.
@danieljliversLXXXIX I am exhausted, but I will leave you with thanking you for this discussion and if I may I will recommend a few bible scholars you should look up. F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, John P. Meier, E.P. Sanders, Edwin Yamauchi, and Craig Blomberg.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Study your history and you'll know there is. Throughout all of human history several facts of Jesus' life were contested, however his very existence was never, ever brought to question, even before christianity was established as a major religion. Its very easy to bend a few dubious facts in order contest Jesus' historicity, however ignore all other evidence against this hypothesis, is not...
@Kesky16 So? That doesn't make him anymore real. There is nothing to support his existence outside the NT. Also how the hell can you say "through out all of human history" when this bloke didn't supposedly exist until two millenniums ago? You seem to be the one who needs a crash course in history, and also in grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Saying there is no evidence outside of the NT illustrates your staggering ignorance. There is abundant evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus, whom was believed to perform miracles. Out of the top of my head I can mention the Dead sea scrolls which support several NT books, Suetonius, Jesephus, Tacitus, Peter's letters and Paul's epistles. There is a reason why all respected historians support the existence of a historical Jesus. Learn your history
@Kesky16 Fool. Read what Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus actually wrote and tell me that's enough to classify as abundant. Hell Josephus's passage is a forgery so you can cross that off your list. The Dead Sea Scolls isn't prove of a NT character, and Peter and Paul's letters are stll apart of the NT. Read real history before telling someone else to do the same.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Read real history before telling someone else to do the same" - your best quote yet. Josephus' quote is THOUGHT to have been changed over time, no history states its a complete forgery simply because every copy of his work available to us has the exact same quote, supporting its historicity. The dead sea scrolls' themes and style of writing proves NT books were written in the 1st century. Must I remind you Jesus' existence was NEVER questioned b4? Theres a reason bud :)
@danieljliversLXXXIX I have read what they have said and although they are not extensive passages the fact DIFFERENT historians mentioned a peasant jew named Jesus (or "Chrestus") is enough to establish a historical figure. Not abundant evidence? More than 3 different historians, 4 synoptic gospels, several other canonical gospels, Peter's and Paul's letters, his impact in history, the apostles' movement afterwards... The evidence is front of you, you just don't want to see it..
@Kesky16 They never mention a Jesus and "Chrestus" (as mentioned by Suetonius) has a different meaning then Christus. Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus... to say that these are abundant is laughably absurd. The so-called evidence that you're try to pawn off is meaningless. The NT isn't proof of its self, and has undergone numerous interpolations over the centuries.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Do you understand how the NT was put together? Do you have any idea of the historical implications and importance of each and every NT book? The NT shouldn't be used to prove itself, it should be critically compared to other archeological evidence portraying the same events at around the same time. After discovering that the dead sea scrolls show similar viewpoints, values and writing styles featured in the NT books only the very ignorant would dare to dismiss it completely
@Kesky16 Do you understand how it was compiled? It wasn't written in stone from the onset. It developed along with Christianity. There's nothing supporting anything about the NT, particularly the Gospels. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew and two centuires before the NT, which was written in Greek. You dhould take the time to learn the development of Christianity, the NT, and the Church.
@danieljliversLXXXIX Some consider "Chrestus" a different word entirely but most attribute it to a simple spelling error due to the nature of the text itself.
We are not talking about modern history, but ancient history. In ancient history, one reliable reference, plus a notable societal impact is usually enough in order to determine someone's historicity. You have already mentioned 3 references outside the NT. Jesus was, and probably still is, the most influential figure who ever lived. (...)
If you take all the folklore, there is not a lot of it left in Chrsitanity ...
just GAPs GAPs GAPs, and some third party texts, from people who exzisted 400 years after jesus, ... all writen in PAST TENSE, never backed up by science or logic,... all true, so read Holly Qur'An, no gaps, all logic, all clear, science backed... Allahu Akbar ...Allah is Greatest, Christianty is just inverted Indzil, holly Book of Islam inverted to be usefull and still claims that Jessus is messinger of God ITSELF!
well try to do that with muslim girl, you will fail indeed, and yes...
you are an idiot, THAT IS INDIVIDUAL, religion is not by indviduals its her fault that she is an idiot, how can you judge a religion by judging a person LOL ....
Herrod tried to have Jesus killed! When Jesus was just born. He sent out troups to kill all the babies. And he survived threw being in a humble medium. Like Moses simbolicly in a basket, Jesus in a manger.
the world would of been a nice place to live in if the hard headed and brain washed sheeple of the christian Jew Islam Buddhist and all other modern religion and would of let the pagans do there magic and nature worship in peace imagine what kind of science and technology would of evolved out of that
watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0 Looks to me, more research is needed because so far it seems he does exist but very good debate none the less. Kind of like is the glass half empty or half full in a morbid way.
Okay, if there isn't a God what is up with the obssession of proving his non-existence. If God isn't real, I didn't hurt anyone with my faith, did I? Nope. And if he is(which I know) then I rejoice. I agree with what ttnsam said, is anyone else out trying to disprove other religions? Nope. But in the bible it says people will hate christians becuase of Jesus, I see that now, just the proof I need that the bible is true.
You know have you guys ever thought why do people if Jesus never existed, or was not God, or did not die for sinners, why are all these people waisting their time trying to disprove Him. I am a Christian by the way. I mean I don't waist my life trying to disprove Khrishna or Vishnu. And whats up with people defining themselves ATHEIST AGNOSTIC by something that does not exist. I mean if He is fake who cares right...But If He is real, you got alot of splainin to do.
"You know have you guys ever thought why do people if Jesus never existed, or was not God, or did not die for sinners, why are all these people waisting their time trying to disprove Him"
Yeah, the fact people point out again and again that jesus couldn't have existed is evidence that he existed.
"I mean I don't waist my life trying to disprove Khrishna or Vishnu."
Do hindu's try to take over the local school board where you live?
Jesus is like Forrest Gump... That's funny, I think Jesus was a real person but his life story has been changed to fit into the christian doctrine. For example if we were to take Martin Luther king 40 years after his death turn him into a God like figure and turn his followers into worshipers than feed to the rest of the world in that way.. We can began a new religion that will stand the test of time.
@JRERRA1382 Yeah, if you're willing to die in hellish ways for it and I don't mean suicide, I mean martyrdom. Before you get all willing to be killed in nasty ways for a lie we first need a reason to want to come up with a "NEW" religion and in Jesus' case, we'll need to get hundreds of people, some of which are sworn enemies mind you, to perpetuate and collaborate this lie. Okay, let's make up a lie (For no reason) and die for it. Hmmm
yeah Adma and Eve.HOW many freakin times are gay people gonna have to suffer the dumb-arsed cliche--'God didn't make Adam and Steve. he made Adam and Eve!'--ie in their dumbfuk minds that story is literal. In Uganda where they will jail gays for life and even execute them they believe all the biblical literalist shite!
I've read Robert Price's tome, "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" and internet excerpts from Francesco Carotta's "Jesus Was Caesar." Taken together, it is obvious to me that whoever wrote Mark reinterpreted a biography of Julius Caesar (or the several of them, combined) and wrapped it seamlessly in varous verses lifted out of the context of Septuagint version of the Torah / Tanakh to make it appear Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies. And the Crucifiction? A re-interpretation of the funeral of...
And the Crucifiction? A reinterpretation of the death and funeral of Julius Caesar wherein he was stabbed 23 times and two days later his wax image was presented on a tropaeum -- creating the first crucfix. And it is quite obvious that, except for a handful of random verses (insults by the Jewish mob and a reference to lifting the three dead bodies up off the cross) Jesus was NOT nailed to and anally impaled on a CRUX like all others including the two thieves, but merely nailed to a TROPAEUM.
Jesus is a historical person. Anyone who denies this is denying thousands upon thousands of eye wittiness accounts including the accounts of highly entitled historical kings and politicians at the time.
@SunnyLovetts the delusion of the desperate has never been more to the fore than this time, yet why defend your imaginary friend when he can so easily do it for you. mmmmmm a sense of doubt? lack of faith?. its ok to admit your wrong, in fact i see it as a quality in people these days rather than a weakness,as it shall allow you to develope further as a rational human being. good mental health to you.
@kram83au The delusion is all yours friend. Man only sees what he wants to see. If God was a lover of sex and hatred and war and greed anything that people enjoy doing. Everyone would believe it. But sense he is of love, and peace and moral, everyone hates him.
@SunnyLovetts yes, so all good science comes from delusion, oh yeah i get it. thank you for that piece of reality . il refer you to a post on you tube. . biblical evidence proving that god is evil.
@SunnyLovetts You'll find that almost anyone that is convinced your God exists doesn't hate him. You also have a very poor understanding of what the word 'everyone means'. It turns out that unfortunately, a significant portion of people are religious, and a significant portion of those people are convinced that your god exists and they indeed love him very much. I think that atheists are actually MORE resistant to the fallacy of appeal to consequence than theists.
@Sebastian44327 You are incorrect. Many say they love God. But they are mostly liars, that just want to be saved from the possibility of hell. The modern Christan isn't a Christan at all. What Christan is okay with bombing women and children for oil? What Christan loves TV more then their creator? What Christan chases the flesh, when the glory of goodness lies within. Hatred runs rampant, people judging other people all through the day. The truth of Christs message of love falls on deaf ears.
@Sunny Lovetts - Better for people to fight for whatever they do / don't believe in than say nothing, thats a common problem of the world, so faier play there Sunny. Have to put this to you though Sunny, do you accept Alexander The Great and other historical figures existed? Do you really expect people to be able to relay names of secular historians (many) outside of the bible to prove Christ was real? There were more sources for Christ than any other historical figure by a huge margin...
@lousten27 "There were more sources for Christ than any other historical figure by a huge margin..."
Huge? uh, no...Maybe half a dozen refences to either Jesus or Christians. At most, they say he was crucified by Pontius Pilate, but it is entirely possible that they were simply retelling stories that Christians told about him being crucified. Even if they are related "official" stories, they are simply saying there is a group following someone who got executed for sedition. Nothing more.
@lousten27 Admittedly, the references to Jesus are relatively contemporary. In many cases, the first references are centuries later. I think the first biography of Alexander was 3-4 centuries later, but we still accept he was a real person. However, the fact Jesus existed does not come close to proving anything at all in the rest of the gospels, certainly not the alledged miracles.
@Sunny Lovetts - Better for people to fight for whatever they do / don't believe in than say nothing, thats a common problem of the world, so fair play there Sunny. Have to put this to you though Sunny, do you accept Alexander The Great and other historical figures existed? Do you really expect people to be able to relay names of secular historians (many) outside of the bible to prove Christ was real? There were more sources for Christ than any other historical figure by a huge margin...
@SunnyLovetts I don't know anyone who 'hates God', rather they believe in him, are undecided, don't care or don't have any reason to believe, and therefore don't. A lot of Christians seems to be under the illusion that all atheists 'hate' God, which is a pretty silly thing to say.
@SunnyLovetts We don't know if Jesus existed or not. Lol, have you seen the whole documentary? Or done any research of your own, for that matter? All we have to go by is the Bible, and no one can be entirely certain right now of where it came from and why. But chances are, just no.
that's one of my probs, there were people whom we know actually lived, Jesus was not a political authority so no coins were made of him or accounts other than the Bible can establish his actually existance., there really should be more than the Bible.
that's one of my probs, there were pleople who we know actually lived, Jesus was not a political authority so no coins or historical accounts can estabilish his actually existance., there really should be more than the Bible.
@PoliticalLee i'm not sure of your point but my thought is that even with this Age we r in, stupidity still reigns supreeme. In so cal last weekend some skydivers were jumping at nite, the news interviewed several people and they all said UFO's.
And I know what satan is.... Satan is myth, don't you know that.... I am a satanist. Satanist do not believe in SUPERNATURAL, in neither god nor the devil !.
Well, i am just good guy like you. So, now.... I think i know jesus WAS here after crucfix he died and throw somewhere place birds can eat people who dies, understandingly. Now i am a satanist.
Haha, "the walls of Jericho"-myth has been explained by science now. It turns out that all the cities down there saw their walls tumble bacause of cluster-earthquakes. And the claimed military leader of an "attack on Jericho" never existed for real. Archaeology has shown that the people who developed the jewish culture and religion were still living scattered up in the highlands, not as "slaves in Egypt" or "kings or leaders of great armies". Those stories are fairy-tales. DNA confirms that,too.
@elainethewise That is not true there is allot of scientific and archaeological proof on many bible stories. In fact the new military sound weapons originally started as a 'walls of Jericho' experiment. And scientist recently proved the parting of the seas is very possible in exactly the fashion stated in biblical text. Regardless people could take allot of wisdom from the bible if read with a critical eye and a open mind.
@ckilr01 i agree there are so many fact findings of the bible stories and the cities that the bible talks about, things from archaelogical finds are things from temples, cities, plants, animals, perfect pinpoint geographic findings of things, even coins mentioned in the bible!! remember these people are bias of itself already... another fail documentary film like religilous...
@roaringwaterbay Yep, and all surveys/studies show that "the lefties" are both more intelligent, informed and educated than the right-wingers/republicans. Have you seen those funny maps on democrat states vs.republican states? Everything is worse with the republican hicks; crime, low wages, low IQ, education....so no wonder they'll even believe ancient fairy-tales, eh?: )
back to my point on eternal damnation in hell-fire and it's relation to God. If you are a Christian, true to the cause, and you believe that God is not only all powerful, but also all loving, then would God allow such a cruel thing to happen to the human race? Absolutely not! Then why is this being taught in our churches? Maybe the greatest cover up isn't on the existence of Jesus, or the existence of God. Maybe the cover up is who instigated that hell-fire would be torture rather than a release
Is there a large population of humans who are evil? Yes there is, and in human terms, they would be called criminals. And if there is criminals, should there be a consequence to that certain crime? I believe there should as many of you might also agree with me. But now I ask you the question. How severe do you think the punishment should be? If God had damned you for eternity, do you think that is reasonable? Absolutely not. So do we answer out of fear that we don't want to be damned eternal?
The point from the start to 0:23 doesn't prove the "folklore" didn't happen and from 0:40 where Robert M. Price compares the two histories where the romans kill the children of Bethlehem, where there is a Jewish Supreme Council and when Pontius Pilot makes his judgement between Barabas and Jesus. Mr. Price is only speculating this from a point of view but hasn't proved it not to happen. And if Jesus was killed a century before his birth, then why is there a BC and AD? Peter was not a gospel.
Im watching this documentary now. And I was once brought up as Christian - Jehova Witness in fact. And two years i change my beliefs because I basically been lied to. But when i watched this documentary, i notice they the christian as well as those who are filming have no clue what so ever about the Scriptures. First off His Name is not Jesus. He was born Hebrew with a Hebrew Name, Jesus is not hebrew, its greek. research it for yourself.
@alyahenai then Jesus' real name is either Joshua, Yeshua or Yahweh. Point taken. His name could have been anything, but those hebrew names translated to greek reads Jesus. But His name translated into a different language doesn't actually explain that He didn't exist...
@Victorio667553 The Messiah's True and Birth Name is YAHshua and thats a fact! The Fact is that names are not to be translated but transliterated. The Name MATTERS as Acts 4:12 states.
@alyahenai but in the end, don't they all mean the same thing? If I was Hebrew, then I'd say Yahshua, and if I was English then I'd say Jesus. Wouldn't it almost be like if I was English I'd say Saturday or Sabbath and if I was Spanish I'd say Sabado?
@alyahenai exactly they don't... even pronouncing the names back to back, it doesn;t sound the same. check out my page on the name.. there was an agenda behind changing His Name and of course 'they' got the whole world following this deception Revelation 12:9... trust, when The Messiah return He will have His Birth, Hebrew, and True Name Rev 14:1 besides only common nouns can be translated not proper nouns. just watch a movie in a different language and you will see what i'm talking about
@alyahenai so you're telling me that if I said Sabado (Spanish) Sabbath (Jewish) and Saturday (Greek/English) then they are all completely different days? Now the first text you sent shows that Satan has several names (Great Dragon, Old Serpent, Devil) and in the second, Yahshua is referred to as a Lamb which is also one of His many names which is mentioned in the Bible at various times. Each has names that don't sound similar at all, but they connect to their specified individuals.
@alyahenai I still can't comprehend how just the difference of a name can be a tool to manipulate to anyone's advantage. How does a different name of the same person affect who I worship? If I am honestly worshipping Yahshua including following His 10 commandments, the Beatitudes, the Fruit of the Spirit etc., but I do it in another name that refers to Him (Jesus) then will I be put into condemnation just because I said the wrong name?
@Victorio667553 we are not to worship Yahshua, we are to worship the Father. The Name matters because Scripture says His Name matters (i.e I John 5:13). You have to understand the forgery that took place in removing YAHWEH's Name which the prophets, some of the apostles and including the Savior, all had the Father's Name, the compound form (YAH) in their Name and for critical reasons and one being baptism. Besides the Two Witnesses will pave the way for His Second Coming and The Yahweh's Truth
@alyahenai "Jesus [or Yahshua if you prefer to call Him that name] said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6 NKJV)
"If you had known Me [Yahsua], you would have known My Father [Yahweh] also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” [indicating the Son and the Father are one] (John 14:7 NKJV)
@Victorio667553 about these scriptures. The Father and the Son is not One as In a trinity, they are One as in Unity meaning one accord, 1 mind. There is no such thing as a trinity. Its evidences that the trinity was added to the scriptures. And you can't take john 14:7 and make it seem like Yahshua is Yahweh because if you read the OT Mosheh and the priests said the same thing. And you quote john 14:6 but john 6:44 states its the Father Who draws or calls a individual(s) to Yahshua or His Body
Yes, you are correct. The Father chooses who to draw to Him, but He doesn't draw them back to Himself, He draws them to the Son. Yahshua says, "No one can come to me unless etc." so if the Father draws that certain individual, we then worship Yahshua. "and I [Yahshua] will raise him up at the last day." The Father is doing His works through His Son
@Victorio667553 OT is the Old Testament and Mosheh is what man change into Moses. I said the Father draws people to Yahshua which is His Body. And His Body is His Father's House which he is High Priest over Hebrews 10:21 The Holy Name Verson of the Bible says that He is High Priest over The House of Yahweh. Yahweh doesn't dwell in House made by hands but the people but The Law states it has to be a building to worship Him in. Also Kepha (peter) says its a spiritual House or Body
@alyahenai so, if I were in the wilderness with a nation at my back, we were all followers of God and we had no buildings to worship Yahweh in, are you saying that because of this, we cannot worship Yahweh?
@Victorio667553 We are servants to whom we obey as The Apostle Shaul (Paul) was inspire to write in Romans 6:16. We cant Worship Yahweh and Satan, so we all are not followers of, you called Yahweh, "god" , I dont because He isn't a god and never identified Himself as such. Only mankind did when they wanted a god (idol) to worship. To worship/serve Yahweh is to do what He says, what is written, and if He says "go to the place where I choose to place My Name" then thats what he mean! or u r not..
@alyahenai Now connecting these texts with your previous comments and also your reference to 1 John 5:13, I see that we are to worship the Father. With what you say and what you believe, I'm not sure if you understand what these texts means, and neither do I know if you understand that if I changed my name I'd still be the same person. People are baptised with all three names, the Father first, then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit. Who are your two witnesses?
@Victorio667553 John 4:20-23, The Passion of the Christ is a perfect example to why His Name is not Jesus, The Apostles never heard the name Jesus. People are baptized incorrectly today and scriptures proves this fact, the holy spirit doesnt have a name, its the spirit that comes forth from the Father, not the Son. The Two Witnesses are... you have to check out the videos I made, which Yahweh names them in scripture
Religion is a myth and the our USA history is been a lie told many time that it became true. Paul revere did not deliver the message it was issereal Bissel n christopher Columbus didn't sit for a potrait n his story originally came from a book since that was there fox news or any media repeating it until it's true
@TheRexty Finally, a sensible comment! We seem to be the only ones here to understand that these fools will surely pay for denying the existence of Lord Brahma... Right?
@dave4248 ...A lot of Christians are happy with there life & 99% of the time are good honest people. So if someone's a Christian who has a good life and they are a nice person, do good things etc... why would you want to ruin that? Because really it just makes you look like an ass hole who hates his own life & are trying to make other people suffer for it.
@dave4248 1: That doesn't make any sense. 2: you obviously don't know how to use sarcasm because that didn't even make sense 3: that wasn't even a real answer. & 4: this has nothing to do with me, i was speaking in general to everybody so don't through your toys out of your pram just yet okay?
@dave4248 I'm going to have to agree with dave4248 on this one. MrTopsykretts11, if you were a Christian, you wouldn't be calling dave4248 an asshole, or a baby referring to the pram incident, whether they are or aren't, it's just plain rude and you're disgracing our name as Christians by doing so. For all I know, dave4248 could be right and you are an aetheist, but I can't really prove that. This is a message to all Christians cussing down others. Where is your Christianity people?
@TheRexty and I pity those that can't read their own scripture. Assuming your Christian since that's what the entire video is about, you surely must have realized that the Bible is one large contradiction. It claims ludicrous happenings with 0 evidence, in fact many things like Noah's flood have been disproved as such an occurrence would have been apparent in sedimentary layers.
It claims a being that murdered millions is forgiving and loving... answer me why?
The Gnostics were the first "Christians" anyway, they were taught by Simon the Magus and Dositheus who both claimed to be the Messiah, and they were from the Essenes who proclaimed the coming of the Teacher of Righteousness (i.e. Dositheus) and the Essenes learnt from the Pythagoreans, and the Pythagoreans from the Egyptians.
@martynblackburn1977 Have you researched the early church or read scholars who take the positon such as Robert Eiseman (James the bother of Jesus-1,000 pages long), who actually wonders if Jesus existed, that the original church was in Jerusalem and was a Jewish not gnostic cult led by James, Jesus and Peter. It was nothing like what Christianity finally became because the Christianity of Paul won the battle for doctrine and pratice.
There was no Jesus of the Gospels; he's fiction; he's a product of the beliefs of that time. The world of pagan and gnostic syncretism ensured that eventually all the cults would merge as it did in Egypt throughout its history; then it only took someone to write something down and fabricate a pseudo-historical account and then burn older books which would have proven the new religion; the new account of things to be a copy-cat.
@martynblackburn1977 With all due respect, you can't find but only two or three scholars and historians who would agree with that. The Gnostics didn't deny Jesus walked the earth, but that he was not a real human. The Jews took the position that Jesus was born out of wedlock with a Roman Soldier as his real father. Almost ALL scholars and historians are certain Jesus was executed by Pilate around 30 CE. And born in the fall between 4 and 7 BCE.
@martynblackburn1977 Where do you find that Christians burned older books?? What about Tacitus saying Christus the origin of the name Christian, an evil superstition which spread from Judea to Rome or Pliny and other writings which trash Christianity. Why did they not burn those?? I imagine a Christian dressed up the TF by Josephus which originally was probably not nice to Jesus.
They probably didn't burn them because they thought it gave them evidence for Christ. (though I'v read that the passge that alludes to Jesus Christ in Tacitus is probably a forgory)
The passage of Josephus is thought to be a Christian interpolation. Josephus was an orthodox Jew -- He wouldn't have said that.
@boblackey1 The Library at Alexandria. Tacitus has derived his information from Christians. And isn't there a passage in Tacituys works which mentions "Christianos" when in fact, underneath the ink there is "Chrestianos". The forgers ink!
@martynblackburn1977 The oldest surviving copies of Tacitus only date to the 11 century. The original is claimed by historians circa 116 CE. There is one manuscript where under ultra-vilote light, it seems the scribe made a correction and erased the "e" to make it into an "i". According to a book I have on Tacitus, close to 100% of scholars and historians accept the passage as genuine. Per Tacitus: Christ origin of name Christian. Crucified by Pilate. Christianity a superstition.
@martynblackburn1977 It is only speculation by some that Tacitus derived his information from Christians. Tacitus could have consulted Roman records or knew the story for years and well before the first Christians came before him.Nobody knows how he knew. My view is when Christ was crucified by Pilate in 30 CE, it was not a big event and just another of hundreds who went to the Roman cross.
@martynblackburn1977 I will have to check on the Library at Alexandria. I think the first distruction there was called Caesar's fire which some say Caesar's men set fire to it by mistake. Then an Emperor who became a Christian ordered all pagan temples destroyed in about 390CE. And didn't the Muslims in the 600s CE sack what was left?
Don't forget that before the arrival of Christianity there had been numerous godman cults circulating the Greco-Roman world. One of them was Serapis, and another was Mithras. Then there was already the discourses and plays of Plato, and the Bacchic Mysteries, and the Pythagoreans.
@martynblackburn1977 Many scholars accept the evidence that the first Christian church was a Jewish movement and was in Jerusalem. It involved Jesus, James who was Jesus' brother, John the Baptist (perhaps Jesus and James cousin) and was not at all like what Christianity became under Paul and later injections of pagan ideas. Paul even admits in his letters that he fought with Peter and James over doctrine.
I don't believe it was in Jerusalem; it was located in Jerusalem viz-a-viz the gospel writers, but all the fragments of these gospels come from outside of Jerusalem. Mark wrote at Alexandria in Egypt. This is where the Oxyrnchus fragment was found from John's gospel. I don't believe Christianity started in Jerusalem; I believe that there were Jewish factions like Essenes and Pharisees but not a Christian sectarian cult. Some of Pauls letters are Catholic forgeries, don't forget.
@uvideosu That can't possibly be correct. There is NOTHING that proves Jesus Christ existed or Alexander the Great or Josephus or the Apostle Paul ect. The written record(Bible, writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Philo etc etc ) are but copies of copies of copies with originals long lost. The New Testament copies are much closer to the origin dates scholars give than say Josephus or Tacitus and most others. The Shroud is very interesting but it needs an earlier carbon date.
Check out a site that lists the REAL Historical and documented evidences concerning the Bible and Jesus, rather than the proposed ,opinionated and unbacked suggestions presented by beyondbeliefmedia.
There is no REAL historical documented evidence of the Bible and Jesus. It all comes from hearsay, and pseudo-history. We don't even have any original copies of the Gospels!
@martynblackburn1977 No original copies of Josephus or Tacitus or anything from the first century. Just copies of copies of copies. Actually Josephus, written in the first century, only goes back to the 10th century. A fragment of John's gospel has been dated at 125 CE. That is much closer. The gospel to the Hebrews which is even older, doens't even exist. They know it did because the Church Fathers in the second, third and fourth centuries mention and quote from it.
@martynblackburn1977 Thats right. We have to trust the scribes who copied all ancient writings by hand over the centuries. The New Testament has the most copies dating back well over a thousand years, about 15,000 and there are differences between them but Dr. Bart Ehrman says most are honest mistakes made by scribes. Almost a thousand years between Josephus' originals and the oldest copies.
@martynblackburn1977 Well I should say as a layman who trusts the scholars and historians, I'm convinced the modern tools of historical investigation they use working with the oldest copies of various manuscripts convinces me that Jesus Christ did exist as did Alexander the Great, Pilate, Paul etc. Many skeptics doubted Pilate existed until 1961 when an arch was found dedicated to Pilate. But does that absolutely prove it? You have to go with what is most likely.
I think it is most likely that Jesus never existed and that what really started it all off was that the Jews remembered a Yeshua (like those mentioned in the Talmud) who went round Jerusalem cursing the people and was hung on a tree. Later the Jews remembered this person and set him up as someone who was a lot more than he was supposed to be.
@martynblackburn1977 Well that doesn't seem to work IF the vast majority of historians and scholars are correct. The original church in Jerusalem was run by James who almost all agree was Jesus' brother. The Jews position for centuries is mostly Jesus was born out of wedlock with his actual father being a Roman soldier. So if you want to hang with the majority of experts, Jesus existed.
I think a few historians, and especially scholars have a "faith-based" outlook on Bible history. Some historians believe as I do, and have weighed up the evidence or lack of it, and made the same conclusions. Someone would make a difference conclusion, but you'd have to be a Christian to believe Jesus existed; if you believe he didn't exist or he was just a man, then you really shouldn't be a believer or Christian. If he was just a man, then what's the point in believing in the gospels?
@martynblackburn1977 The scholar I follow the most is James D. Tabor, PhD and he is not a Christian but is convinced the evidence supports a historical Jesus. Tabor also supports the view held my many Jews that Jesus had a natural father and was born out of wedlock. Also the majority of skeptical scholars believe Jesus was just a man thus they could not believe the gospel.
In what way does he believe that Jesus was historical?If he believes it, then why is he not a Christian already? There was a Jesus (aka ben Damneus) around that time. He was a high priest under Herod Agrippa, but he was nothing like the Gospel Jesus; he is a work of fiction. I doubt even that there was anything historical there in the gospels at all; but it is only my opinion.
@martynblackburn1977 Tabor has made the study of historical Jesus and the origin of Christianity his life's work. PhD from University of Chicago in these fields. Tabor is convinced from his work that Jesus was born in the fall between 4 and 7 BCE out of wedlock to Miriam and a Roman soldier in Nazareth or close by. His half brother James was head of the original Christian movement. Was executed by Ponitus Pilate about 30 CE.
@martynblackburn1977 Also there where MANY who had the name Jesus in Christ's time. That is why Josephus usually would use titles such as John THE BAPTIST or James, brother of Jesus called Christ, rather than just John or James or Jesus. Jesus Son of Damneus is another example.
@boblackey1 Indeed. But Josephus' works have been doctored by Christian scribes. Where his books have not been doctored he did mention individuals with the name of "Yeshu" or "Yeshua", which is Joshua, and Joshua is Ioshu in Egypt.
@martynblackburn1977 How do you know where Josephus has NOT been doctored? The only copies of Josephus were ALL copied by Christian scribes and the oldest date only to the 10th century. Just a few who support the Jesus myth theory want to throw out any mention of Jesus of Nazareth by Josephus. The rest accept the shorter "James brother of Jesus called Christ" except many think it may had said "so-called Christ".
@boblackey1 I don't know 100% of course but it looks as if the Christians did doctor the works of Josephus; they even used his books to base the stories of their characters, especially Paul's journey through the Med. There was no "Jesus of Nazareth"; the Greek is "Nazaraioi" which is not the name of a town. The problem with the Josephus passage is that falls back on the Christian interpolation for reference therefore both must be spurious.
@martynblackburn1977 The view Luke used Josephus as a source is not widely accepted by scholars and historians. Many traditional historians do place Jesus' birth a Nazareth even though the Bible says it was Bethlehem. Only place in Josephus where most scholars think a Christian scribe tampered with or "glossed" the passage is the so-called TF. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman, PhD has removed the parts that he feels are not original with Josephus and mention of the Bible Jesus is still there.
@martynblackburn1977 And don't forget the Apostle Matthew is viewed by a great number of scholars and the Church Fathers writing in the second, third and fourth century as an actual eyewitness to Jesus of Nazareth. There is not great certainty that Paul ever actually saw Jesus, but Paul claims to have met James and Peter who knew the Jesus in the flesh.
@boblackey1 But the Church Fathers inherited second and third-hand literature, and they also wrote things which were clearly ludicrous, such as Origens attack on Celsus. The Church Fathers tried to prove that so and so were eye-witnesses and to that extent they misunderstood these writings. And all the gospels were written by anonymous authors. This is spurious history.
@martynblackburn1977 Some of the Church Fathers also claimed to be disciples of John who was said to be an eyewitness to Jesus and one of his followers. The Gospel to the Hebrews was NOT written by an anonymous author but by Matthew. There enough scholars who agree with this to fill a large room. Here in my area, James Tabor, PhD University of Chicago supports the view Jesus was born out of wedlock to Miriam and a Roman Soldier. Read his Jesus Dynasty.
@martynblackburn1977 Many scholars support the view that Matthew wrote the Gospel to the Hebrews in the Hebrew launguage before the gospels found in the New Testament were written and this gospel was a source for the canonical gospels. Edwards, Nicholson, Hilgenfield, Zahn, Harrack, Handmann, Kruger, McGiffert, Ropes and many others support this view and they say it is very close to a historical fact that this IS the Matthew who actually saw Jesus.
@martynblackburn1977 And Church Fathers Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome writing in the second century, some third century, ALL claim the Gospel to the Hebrews was written by Matthew in the Hebrew lauguage and this Matthew WAS the tax collector and later follower of Jesus. Of course this gospel is lost today. But almost ALL scholars and historians accept it as having existed in the early centuries of CE.
@Lut41 Jesus isn't meantioned in history, only in the Bible. The Gospel writers were merely weaving myths based on the teachings of a gaggle of itinerant rabbis and giving it a dramatic twist to appeal to their audience. You can't prove Bible stories are literally true by quoting the Bible or citing "eyewitnesses" who only appear in its pages.
"Take away the folklore from the bible, and all you have is begat begat begat begat"
Exactly, and a lot of other things like stoning your neighbor, genocide, breaking baby's skulls, and bears ripping children into pieces (guy who wrote 2 Kings must really hate kids).
Then Jesus came, so everything became cute and cuddly (that was after he got bled dry by the crucifixion), and everyone is now tap-dancing with the holy spirit.
Isaiah 7:14 gives u his real name y people still believe in this jesus & christ the name cristo comes from a satanic cult in land of helens new name is Greece that paul enemy of Immanuel gave him this title & started the cult christianity when Immanuel never taught none of this lies so christianity is the Anti-Truth read the biggest threat to all earth religions the book TALMUD JMMANUEL & b free from all lies of religions WAKE UP U LATE. PEACE B ON EARTH & AMONG ALL BEINGS
The religious are conditioned to dismiss facts that contradict their faith. You can't reason with someone who puts stock in faith and ignores reason. In the end I believe we all go the same place. What kind of God would judge people harshly for not believing in the unbelievable?
@TheSemievolved now that's true in the case for some of my Christian brothers and sisters there, and I'm not saying this to offend anyone who is Christian, I'm just saying the truth, but not all Christians are like this my friend. What if there was a person out there (doesn't have to be Christian) who had countless amounts of scientific, historic etc. evidence to say that a God can exist, just like Evolution has it's own evidence not to prove, but to speculate. What then does religion become?
Im no christian, but anyone who has studied any history knows that there is at the very least overwhelming evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus..
Kesky16 3 months ago
@Kesky16 No there isn't.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Of course there is.. Only some1 who knows very little of 1st century history would consider this hypothesis
Kesky16 2 months ago
@Kesky16 Which is funny because everything about this bloke comes from second century accounts. There is nothing in the first century about him. Clement, Ignatius, and Josephus are all forgories. So where is this overwhelming evidence at?
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX The passage in Flavius Josephus' Antiquities that concerns Jesus is not a forgery. It has partial authenticity. Most historians agree that its core is authentic. It is only fringe scholars who argue full forgery. Christian copyists added interpolations to the passage. However, there is a 10th century Syrian copy that has the original, unaltered version. We have the documents of Ignatius, Origen, and Clement of Rome. Those definitely are not forgeries.
StAugustine79 2 months ago
@StAugustine79 Since there's no way of knowing what parts are genuine and what parts are not it's still useless. Also Josephus wrote at the end of the first century, sixty years after this event. He also wouldn't say what he did about Jesus being the true Messiah (being a Jew and also stating that Vespasian was the true Messiah.) No Christian apologist in the first centuries ever mentions it. Even Origen, (who uses a different passage), says that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@StAugustine79 Having a copy from the tenth century isn't going to help the case. The letters of Ignatius and Clement (besides one, which is still doubted) are considered "pseudo-epigraphs," which is a more friendly way of saying forgeries. I never mentioned anything about Origen. And where is this business of "fringe" scholars coming from? Anyone who says anything not status quo is fringe now? Even respected Christian biblical scholars are still critical of the passage.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Most of the accounts that Josephus mentioned are not comtemporary, yet there is corroborative historical evidence to support them. Josephus' account of the destruction of the Temple and the Roman-Jewish War. The part that you mentioned of Josephus calling Jesus the Messiah was a later interpolation. The main core is authentic since the other passage of Josephus mentioning James and John the Baptist is authentic in connection with Jesus is authentic.
StAugustine79 2 months ago
@StAugustine79 What is this main core? If one part is interpolated then it casts doubt on the validity of the rest. We're not talking about the destruction of the temple or the relations between Jews and Romans. And as far as the passage with John the Baptised is concern, not only is there suspicion on this as well but it is irrelavnt to the historicity of Jesus; and the passage about James is refering to another Jesus all together.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Many many biographies and chronicles in the ancient world were not contemporary or primary sources, yet they are closest we have to the actual events. Thucydides' Pelopponesian War and Herodotus' Histories were written long after the events they describe yet they are authentic. Alexander the Great's biographer wrote centuries after his death.
StAugustine79 2 months ago
@StAugustine79 Historians don't just rely on textual information, and there is nothing out side the few scriblings of second century historians (whom only refer to Christians and a vauge Christus figure) to support anything the NT has about this Jesus Christ. This is a common trick Apologists try to use, but there are different standards when relating figures in these texts in to reality. And there is nothing historical (not even possible) about Jesus.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX No, my friend im sorry that is not a trick. I am using the same historical methods applied to anything else. Claiming that there is "nothing historical or even possible" about Jesus is just an assertion. You did not mention the Gospels themselves, the letters of Paul written closer to the events (reference 1 Corinthians 15, which has the core creed of the Church). There is no indication the Gospel writers were writing fiction, but history.
StAugustine79 2 months ago
@StAugustine79 First, I'm not your friend. Second, it is a trick. A common trick used by Apologists to down play everything else of history if their precious Jesus isn't real. There no historical bearings with the Christ story and everything thing about it reeks of myth. (Virgin birth? Ressurection? Mystical healings? These thing don't occure in our world). The assertion is that he existed. As for Paul, he didn't imply a historical Christ but one revealed only through revelation.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Well your condescension and antagonistic attitude is unwarranted. Unfortunately this is all too common among those who object to christianity. I wish you the best.
StAugustine79 2 months ago
@StAugustine79 Cry me a river. Your false piety, holier-than-thou smugness and prosectution complex is common amongst those who accept this death cult called Christianity.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@StAugustine79 "There is no indication the Gospel writers were writing fiction, but history."
Too bad everything in them is fiction.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Plus, there is no historical explanation for the emergence of the early church if in fact Jesus was not a real figure. It is historically impossible that the Church risked their lives for a fictional figure. They would not have grown exponentially, having thousands upon thousands of converts on a daily basis if that were true, especially given the fact that at the very beginning there were no "fabricated Gospels." The Sanhedrin and the Romans would have exposed them.
StAugustine79 2 months ago
@StAugustine79 If Dionysus wasn't a real figure (as you told me yourself) then where did his Mysteries come from? This is just more misconceptions about how the chruch rose to power, which was politcal. What you have here is a fringe Jewish sect slowly gaining the upper hand while mingling with the Hellenized cultures until they dominated the whole political spectrum in Rome. It wasn't as fast as you say. It was a slow and violant process . You need to return to the drawing board.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX I am exhausted, but I will leave you with thanking you for this discussion and if I may I will recommend a few bible scholars you should look up. F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, John P. Meier, E.P. Sanders, Edwin Yamauchi, and Craig Blomberg.
StAugustine79 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Study your history and you'll know there is. Throughout all of human history several facts of Jesus' life were contested, however his very existence was never, ever brought to question, even before christianity was established as a major religion. Its very easy to bend a few dubious facts in order contest Jesus' historicity, however ignore all other evidence against this hypothesis, is not...
Kesky16 2 months ago
@Kesky16 So? That doesn't make him anymore real. There is nothing to support his existence outside the NT. Also how the hell can you say "through out all of human history" when this bloke didn't supposedly exist until two millenniums ago? You seem to be the one who needs a crash course in history, and also in grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
danieljliversLXXXIX 2 months ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Saying there is no evidence outside of the NT illustrates your staggering ignorance. There is abundant evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus, whom was believed to perform miracles. Out of the top of my head I can mention the Dead sea scrolls which support several NT books, Suetonius, Jesephus, Tacitus, Peter's letters and Paul's epistles. There is a reason why all respected historians support the existence of a historical Jesus. Learn your history
Kesky16 1 month ago
@Kesky16 Fool. Read what Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus actually wrote and tell me that's enough to classify as abundant. Hell Josephus's passage is a forgery so you can cross that off your list. The Dead Sea Scolls isn't prove of a NT character, and Peter and Paul's letters are stll apart of the NT. Read real history before telling someone else to do the same.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
Comment removed
Kesky16 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljliversLXXXIX Read real history before telling someone else to do the same" - your best quote yet. Josephus' quote is THOUGHT to have been changed over time, no history states its a complete forgery simply because every copy of his work available to us has the exact same quote, supporting its historicity. The dead sea scrolls' themes and style of writing proves NT books were written in the 1st century. Must I remind you Jesus' existence was NEVER questioned b4? Theres a reason bud :)
Kesky16 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX I have read what they have said and although they are not extensive passages the fact DIFFERENT historians mentioned a peasant jew named Jesus (or "Chrestus") is enough to establish a historical figure. Not abundant evidence? More than 3 different historians, 4 synoptic gospels, several other canonical gospels, Peter's and Paul's letters, his impact in history, the apostles' movement afterwards... The evidence is front of you, you just don't want to see it..
Kesky16 1 month ago
@Kesky16 They never mention a Jesus and "Chrestus" (as mentioned by Suetonius) has a different meaning then Christus. Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus... to say that these are abundant is laughably absurd. The so-called evidence that you're try to pawn off is meaningless. The NT isn't proof of its self, and has undergone numerous interpolations over the centuries.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
Comment removed
Kesky16 1 month ago
@danieljliversLXXXIX Do you understand how the NT was put together? Do you have any idea of the historical implications and importance of each and every NT book? The NT shouldn't be used to prove itself, it should be critically compared to other archeological evidence portraying the same events at around the same time. After discovering that the dead sea scrolls show similar viewpoints, values and writing styles featured in the NT books only the very ignorant would dare to dismiss it completely
Kesky16 1 month ago
@Kesky16 Do you understand how it was compiled? It wasn't written in stone from the onset. It developed along with Christianity. There's nothing supporting anything about the NT, particularly the Gospels. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew and two centuires before the NT, which was written in Greek. You dhould take the time to learn the development of Christianity, the NT, and the Church.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danieljliversLXXXIX Some consider "Chrestus" a different word entirely but most attribute it to a simple spelling error due to the nature of the text itself.
We are not talking about modern history, but ancient history. In ancient history, one reliable reference, plus a notable societal impact is usually enough in order to determine someone's historicity. You have already mentioned 3 references outside the NT. Jesus was, and probably still is, the most influential figure who ever lived. (...)
Kesky16 1 month ago
My God has a bigger dick than yours!
Frikzter 5 months ago
If you take all the folklore, there is not a lot of it left in Chrsitanity ...
just GAPs GAPs GAPs, and some third party texts, from people who exzisted 400 years after jesus, ... all writen in PAST TENSE, never backed up by science or logic,... all true, so read Holly Qur'An, no gaps, all logic, all clear, science backed... Allahu Akbar ...Allah is Greatest, Christianty is just inverted Indzil, holly Book of Islam inverted to be usefull and still claims that Jessus is messinger of God ITSELF!
BoTviX 5 months ago
Comment removed
taojaii 6 months ago
@taojaii
well try to do that with muslim girl, you will fail indeed, and yes...
you are an idiot, THAT IS INDIVIDUAL, religion is not by indviduals its her fault that she is an idiot, how can you judge a religion by judging a person LOL ....
BoTviX 5 months ago
Herrod tried to have Jesus killed! When Jesus was just born. He sent out troups to kill all the babies. And he survived threw being in a humble medium. Like Moses simbolicly in a basket, Jesus in a manger.
desasterz 6 months ago
the bible is history's biggest troll on humanity.
1009541074brb 7 months ago 6
@1009541074brb
true word dude ... :D
BoTviX 5 months ago
the world would of been a nice place to live in if the hard headed and brain washed sheeple of the christian Jew Islam Buddhist and all other modern religion and would of let the pagans do there magic and nature worship in peace imagine what kind of science and technology would of evolved out of that
jose012358 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0 Looks to me, more research is needed because so far it seems he does exist but very good debate none the less. Kind of like is the glass half empty or half full in a morbid way.
Big4Bill 8 months ago
Okay, if there isn't a God what is up with the obssession of proving his non-existence. If God isn't real, I didn't hurt anyone with my faith, did I? Nope. And if he is(which I know) then I rejoice. I agree with what ttnsam said, is anyone else out trying to disprove other religions? Nope. But in the bible it says people will hate christians becuase of Jesus, I see that now, just the proof I need that the bible is true.
CoDeNaMeCrZyChCk 9 months ago
If jesus was real he was NOT the son of a god; he was a con-artist who played the part in order to control the masses for better or worse
george77772moons 9 months ago
You know have you guys ever thought why do people if Jesus never existed, or was not God, or did not die for sinners, why are all these people waisting their time trying to disprove Him. I am a Christian by the way. I mean I don't waist my life trying to disprove Khrishna or Vishnu. And whats up with people defining themselves ATHEIST AGNOSTIC by something that does not exist. I mean if He is fake who cares right...But If He is real, you got alot of splainin to do.
ttnsam 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ttnsam
"You know have you guys ever thought why do people if Jesus never existed, or was not God, or did not die for sinners, why are all these people waisting their time trying to disprove Him"
Yeah, the fact people point out again and again that jesus couldn't have existed is evidence that he existed.
"I mean I don't waist my life trying to disprove Khrishna or Vishnu."
Do hindu's try to take over the local school board where you live?
merneptah2 7 months ago
see shit like this make god people start saying my lord when its really our lord
MissCedarbridge1 9 months ago
Jesus is like Forrest Gump... That's funny, I think Jesus was a real person but his life story has been changed to fit into the christian doctrine. For example if we were to take Martin Luther king 40 years after his death turn him into a God like figure and turn his followers into worshipers than feed to the rest of the world in that way.. We can began a new religion that will stand the test of time.
JRERRA1382 11 months ago
@JRERRA1382 Yeah, if you're willing to die in hellish ways for it and I don't mean suicide, I mean martyrdom. Before you get all willing to be killed in nasty ways for a lie we first need a reason to want to come up with a "NEW" religion and in Jesus' case, we'll need to get hundreds of people, some of which are sworn enemies mind you, to perpetuate and collaborate this lie. Okay, let's make up a lie (For no reason) and die for it. Hmmm
sowlschooled 10 months ago
yeah Adma and Eve.HOW many freakin times are gay people gonna have to suffer the dumb-arsed cliche--'God didn't make Adam and Steve. he made Adam and Eve!'--ie in their dumbfuk minds that story is literal. In Uganda where they will jail gays for life and even execute them they believe all the biblical literalist shite!
zezt 11 months ago
I've read Robert Price's tome, "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" and internet excerpts from Francesco Carotta's "Jesus Was Caesar." Taken together, it is obvious to me that whoever wrote Mark reinterpreted a biography of Julius Caesar (or the several of them, combined) and wrapped it seamlessly in varous verses lifted out of the context of Septuagint version of the Torah / Tanakh to make it appear Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies. And the Crucifiction? A re-interpretation of the funeral of...
EdM021 11 months ago
And the Crucifiction? A reinterpretation of the death and funeral of Julius Caesar wherein he was stabbed 23 times and two days later his wax image was presented on a tropaeum -- creating the first crucfix. And it is quite obvious that, except for a handful of random verses (insults by the Jewish mob and a reference to lifting the three dead bodies up off the cross) Jesus was NOT nailed to and anally impaled on a CRUX like all others including the two thieves, but merely nailed to a TROPAEUM.
EdM021 11 months ago
Jesus is a historical person. Anyone who denies this is denying thousands upon thousands of eye wittiness accounts including the accounts of highly entitled historical kings and politicians at the time.
SunnyLovetts 1 year ago
@SunnyLovetts please, elaborate with the names of witnesses and their accounts.
bdstrohl 1 year ago
@SunnyLovetts the delusion of the desperate has never been more to the fore than this time, yet why defend your imaginary friend when he can so easily do it for you. mmmmmm a sense of doubt? lack of faith?. its ok to admit your wrong, in fact i see it as a quality in people these days rather than a weakness,as it shall allow you to develope further as a rational human being. good mental health to you.
kram83au 1 year ago
@kram83au The delusion is all yours friend. Man only sees what he wants to see. If God was a lover of sex and hatred and war and greed anything that people enjoy doing. Everyone would believe it. But sense he is of love, and peace and moral, everyone hates him.
SunnyLovetts 11 months ago
@SunnyLovetts yes, so all good science comes from delusion, oh yeah i get it. thank you for that piece of reality . il refer you to a post on you tube. . biblical evidence proving that god is evil.
kram83au 11 months ago
@SunnyLovetts You'll find that almost anyone that is convinced your God exists doesn't hate him. You also have a very poor understanding of what the word 'everyone means'. It turns out that unfortunately, a significant portion of people are religious, and a significant portion of those people are convinced that your god exists and they indeed love him very much. I think that atheists are actually MORE resistant to the fallacy of appeal to consequence than theists.
Sebastian44327 11 months ago
@Sebastian44327 You are incorrect. Many say they love God. But they are mostly liars, that just want to be saved from the possibility of hell. The modern Christan isn't a Christan at all. What Christan is okay with bombing women and children for oil? What Christan loves TV more then their creator? What Christan chases the flesh, when the glory of goodness lies within. Hatred runs rampant, people judging other people all through the day. The truth of Christs message of love falls on deaf ears.
SunnyLovetts 11 months ago 3
@SunnyLovetts Hate to break it to you but just about everyone, christian and non-christian alike, loves there parents more than TV. Sorry.
Sebastian44327 11 months ago
@Sunny Lovetts - Better for people to fight for whatever they do / don't believe in than say nothing, thats a common problem of the world, so faier play there Sunny. Have to put this to you though Sunny, do you accept Alexander The Great and other historical figures existed? Do you really expect people to be able to relay names of secular historians (many) outside of the bible to prove Christ was real? There were more sources for Christ than any other historical figure by a huge margin...
lousten27 8 months ago
@lousten27 "There were more sources for Christ than any other historical figure by a huge margin..."
Huge? uh, no...Maybe half a dozen refences to either Jesus or Christians. At most, they say he was crucified by Pontius Pilate, but it is entirely possible that they were simply retelling stories that Christians told about him being crucified. Even if they are related "official" stories, they are simply saying there is a group following someone who got executed for sedition. Nothing more.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@lousten27 Admittedly, the references to Jesus are relatively contemporary. In many cases, the first references are centuries later. I think the first biography of Alexander was 3-4 centuries later, but we still accept he was a real person. However, the fact Jesus existed does not come close to proving anything at all in the rest of the gospels, certainly not the alledged miracles.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@Sunny Lovetts - Better for people to fight for whatever they do / don't believe in than say nothing, thats a common problem of the world, so fair play there Sunny. Have to put this to you though Sunny, do you accept Alexander The Great and other historical figures existed? Do you really expect people to be able to relay names of secular historians (many) outside of the bible to prove Christ was real? There were more sources for Christ than any other historical figure by a huge margin...
lousten27 8 months ago
@SunnyLovetts I don't know anyone who 'hates God', rather they believe in him, are undecided, don't care or don't have any reason to believe, and therefore don't. A lot of Christians seems to be under the illusion that all atheists 'hate' God, which is a pretty silly thing to say.
Michimera 9 months ago
@SunnyLovetts We don't know if Jesus existed or not. Lol, have you seen the whole documentary? Or done any research of your own, for that matter? All we have to go by is the Bible, and no one can be entirely certain right now of where it came from and why. But chances are, just no.
Michimera 9 months ago
that's one of my probs, there were people whom we know actually lived, Jesus was not a political authority so no coins were made of him or accounts other than the Bible can establish his actually existance., there really should be more than the Bible.
dgb751 1 year ago
that's one of my probs, there were pleople who we know actually lived, Jesus was not a political authority so no coins or historical accounts can estabilish his actually existance., there really should be more than the Bible.
dgb751 1 year ago
In the age of the Internet, we have the potential for Enlightenment. The tree of knowledge that those in charge don't want you to eat from.
PoliticalLee 1 year ago 22
@PoliticalLee "For if we eat of it...we will surely die".
Which begs the question, who was telling the truth? lol
changingmyself 1 year ago
@PoliticalLee i'm not sure of your point but my thought is that even with this Age we r in, stupidity still reigns supreeme. In so cal last weekend some skydivers were jumping at nite, the news interviewed several people and they all said UFO's.
dgb751 1 year ago
@PoliticalLee ive been saying this for the last 3 yrs
TAKE6MANAGEMENT 1 year ago
And I know what satan is.... Satan is myth, don't you know that.... I am a satanist. Satanist do not believe in SUPERNATURAL, in neither god nor the devil !.
1111goodmorning 1 year ago
@1111goodmorning your not a satanist...your ATHIEST. Dont you know that? Dont make up labels for yourself that dont fit!
shanabell420 1 year ago
@shanabell420 -- oh no wonder, thank you.... But i told you Satan is " seen " as synonymous with the nature, okay....
1111goodmorning 1 year ago
Well, i am just good guy like you. So, now.... I think i know jesus WAS here after crucfix he died and throw somewhere place birds can eat people who dies, understandingly. Now i am a satanist.
1111goodmorning 1 year ago
Haha, "the walls of Jericho"-myth has been explained by science now. It turns out that all the cities down there saw their walls tumble bacause of cluster-earthquakes. And the claimed military leader of an "attack on Jericho" never existed for real. Archaeology has shown that the people who developed the jewish culture and religion were still living scattered up in the highlands, not as "slaves in Egypt" or "kings or leaders of great armies". Those stories are fairy-tales. DNA confirms that,too.
winterstellar 1 year ago
@winterstellar *because*
winterstellar 1 year ago
how can a mythical character move a nation and 2000 years later still growing strong???
IlC4RL0SIl 1 year ago
All the Hindu Gods are still going strong too.
a68rebel 1 year ago 10
@a68rebel haha thats a good one
kennyispoor 11 months ago
@a68rebel i know right
carnifex714 9 months ago
Proof has not yet been shown about any religious writings.
elainethewise 1 year ago
@elainethewise That is not true there is allot of scientific and archaeological proof on many bible stories. In fact the new military sound weapons originally started as a 'walls of Jericho' experiment. And scientist recently proved the parting of the seas is very possible in exactly the fashion stated in biblical text. Regardless people could take allot of wisdom from the bible if read with a critical eye and a open mind.
ckilr01 1 year ago
@ckilr01 i agree there are so many fact findings of the bible stories and the cities that the bible talks about, things from archaelogical finds are things from temples, cities, plants, animals, perfect pinpoint geographic findings of things, even coins mentioned in the bible!! remember these people are bias of itself already... another fail documentary film like religilous...
samuellis 1 year ago
leftie propaganda.
roaringwaterbay 1 year ago
@roaringwaterbay Yep, and all surveys/studies show that "the lefties" are both more intelligent, informed and educated than the right-wingers/republicans. Have you seen those funny maps on democrat states vs.republican states? Everything is worse with the republican hicks; crime, low wages, low IQ, education....so no wonder they'll even believe ancient fairy-tales, eh?: )
winterstellar 1 year ago
Did Pontius Pilate really exist? What about Rabban Gamaliel in Acts 5, did he really exist?
NadNareek 1 year ago
@NadNareek maybe not but there isn't a gigantic group of people living their lives based on what he may or may not have said and did.
laximusprime15 1 year ago
This is a bit like beating a dead horse. If you're still a Christian by adulthood I can't think of anything that could change your mind.
uberjim83 1 year ago
@uberjim83
A lot of them have just never thought critically about it. I know of 40 year olds who have realised it's nonsense.
chebob2009 1 year ago
back to my point on eternal damnation in hell-fire and it's relation to God. If you are a Christian, true to the cause, and you believe that God is not only all powerful, but also all loving, then would God allow such a cruel thing to happen to the human race? Absolutely not! Then why is this being taught in our churches? Maybe the greatest cover up isn't on the existence of Jesus, or the existence of God. Maybe the cover up is who instigated that hell-fire would be torture rather than a release
Victorio667553 1 year ago
Is there a large population of humans who are evil? Yes there is, and in human terms, they would be called criminals. And if there is criminals, should there be a consequence to that certain crime? I believe there should as many of you might also agree with me. But now I ask you the question. How severe do you think the punishment should be? If God had damned you for eternity, do you think that is reasonable? Absolutely not. So do we answer out of fear that we don't want to be damned eternal?
Victorio667553 1 year ago
The point from the start to 0:23 doesn't prove the "folklore" didn't happen and from 0:40 where Robert M. Price compares the two histories where the romans kill the children of Bethlehem, where there is a Jewish Supreme Council and when Pontius Pilot makes his judgement between Barabas and Jesus. Mr. Price is only speculating this from a point of view but hasn't proved it not to happen. And if Jesus was killed a century before his birth, then why is there a BC and AD? Peter was not a gospel.
Victorio667553 1 year ago
Jesus may have been just a Jewish/Roman version of Buddha's story.
brianpadraic 1 year ago
Im watching this documentary now. And I was once brought up as Christian - Jehova Witness in fact. And two years i change my beliefs because I basically been lied to. But when i watched this documentary, i notice they the christian as well as those who are filming have no clue what so ever about the Scriptures. First off His Name is not Jesus. He was born Hebrew with a Hebrew Name, Jesus is not hebrew, its greek. research it for yourself.
alyahenai 1 year ago
@alyahenai then Jesus' real name is either Joshua, Yeshua or Yahweh. Point taken. His name could have been anything, but those hebrew names translated to greek reads Jesus. But His name translated into a different language doesn't actually explain that He didn't exist...
Victorio667553 1 year ago
@Victorio667553 The Messiah's True and Birth Name is YAHshua and thats a fact! The Fact is that names are not to be translated but transliterated. The Name MATTERS as Acts 4:12 states.
alyahenai 1 year ago
@alyahenai but in the end, don't they all mean the same thing? If I was Hebrew, then I'd say Yahshua, and if I was English then I'd say Jesus. Wouldn't it almost be like if I was English I'd say Saturday or Sabbath and if I was Spanish I'd say Sabado?
Victorio667553 1 year ago
@alyahenai exactly they don't... even pronouncing the names back to back, it doesn;t sound the same. check out my page on the name.. there was an agenda behind changing His Name and of course 'they' got the whole world following this deception Revelation 12:9... trust, when The Messiah return He will have His Birth, Hebrew, and True Name Rev 14:1 besides only common nouns can be translated not proper nouns. just watch a movie in a different language and you will see what i'm talking about
alyahenai 1 year ago
@alyahenai so you're telling me that if I said Sabado (Spanish) Sabbath (Jewish) and Saturday (Greek/English) then they are all completely different days? Now the first text you sent shows that Satan has several names (Great Dragon, Old Serpent, Devil) and in the second, Yahshua is referred to as a Lamb which is also one of His many names which is mentioned in the Bible at various times. Each has names that don't sound similar at all, but they connect to their specified individuals.
Victorio667553 1 year ago
@alyahenai I still can't comprehend how just the difference of a name can be a tool to manipulate to anyone's advantage. How does a different name of the same person affect who I worship? If I am honestly worshipping Yahshua including following His 10 commandments, the Beatitudes, the Fruit of the Spirit etc., but I do it in another name that refers to Him (Jesus) then will I be put into condemnation just because I said the wrong name?
Victorio667553 1 year ago
@Victorio667553 we are not to worship Yahshua, we are to worship the Father. The Name matters because Scripture says His Name matters (i.e I John 5:13). You have to understand the forgery that took place in removing YAHWEH's Name which the prophets, some of the apostles and including the Savior, all had the Father's Name, the compound form (YAH) in their Name and for critical reasons and one being baptism. Besides the Two Witnesses will pave the way for His Second Coming and The Yahweh's Truth
alyahenai 1 year ago
@alyahenai "Jesus [or Yahshua if you prefer to call Him that name] said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6 NKJV)
"If you had known Me [Yahsua], you would have known My Father [Yahweh] also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” [indicating the Son and the Father are one] (John 14:7 NKJV)
Victorio667553 1 year ago
@Victorio667553 about these scriptures. The Father and the Son is not One as In a trinity, they are One as in Unity meaning one accord, 1 mind. There is no such thing as a trinity. Its evidences that the trinity was added to the scriptures. And you can't take john 14:7 and make it seem like Yahshua is Yahweh because if you read the OT Mosheh and the priests said the same thing. And you quote john 14:6 but john 6:44 states its the Father Who draws or calls a individual(s) to Yahshua or His Body
alyahenai 1 year ago
@alyahenai what is OT Mosheh? XD
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:44
Yes, you are correct. The Father chooses who to draw to Him, but He doesn't draw them back to Himself, He draws them to the Son. Yahshua says, "No one can come to me unless etc." so if the Father draws that certain individual, we then worship Yahshua. "and I [Yahshua] will raise him up at the last day." The Father is doing His works through His Son
Victorio667553 1 year ago
@Victorio667553 OT is the Old Testament and Mosheh is what man change into Moses. I said the Father draws people to Yahshua which is His Body. And His Body is His Father's House which he is High Priest over Hebrews 10:21 The Holy Name Verson of the Bible says that He is High Priest over The House of Yahweh. Yahweh doesn't dwell in House made by hands but the people but The Law states it has to be a building to worship Him in. Also Kepha (peter) says its a spiritual House or Body
alyahenai 1 year ago
@alyahenai so, if I were in the wilderness with a nation at my back, we were all followers of God and we had no buildings to worship Yahweh in, are you saying that because of this, we cannot worship Yahweh?
Victorio667553 1 year ago
@Victorio667553 We are servants to whom we obey as The Apostle Shaul (Paul) was inspire to write in Romans 6:16. We cant Worship Yahweh and Satan, so we all are not followers of, you called Yahweh, "god" , I dont because He isn't a god and never identified Himself as such. Only mankind did when they wanted a god (idol) to worship. To worship/serve Yahweh is to do what He says, what is written, and if He says "go to the place where I choose to place My Name" then thats what he mean! or u r not..
alyahenai 1 year ago
@alyahenai Now connecting these texts with your previous comments and also your reference to 1 John 5:13, I see that we are to worship the Father. With what you say and what you believe, I'm not sure if you understand what these texts means, and neither do I know if you understand that if I changed my name I'd still be the same person. People are baptised with all three names, the Father first, then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit. Who are your two witnesses?
Victorio667553 1 year ago
@Victorio667553 John 4:20-23, The Passion of the Christ is a perfect example to why His Name is not Jesus, The Apostles never heard the name Jesus. People are baptized incorrectly today and scriptures proves this fact, the holy spirit doesnt have a name, its the spirit that comes forth from the Father, not the Son. The Two Witnesses are... you have to check out the videos I made, which Yahweh names them in scripture
alyahenai 1 year ago
@alyahenai I have a spanish friend and he said Yahweh AND Yahshua, I believe its a video on youtube proofing this fact, that Names can not translate
alyahenai 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is the origin of Easter? - ChristianAnswers this will explain everything of all false religions type it in google.
mvitt86 1 year ago
What is the origin of Easter? - ChristianAnswers this will explain everything of all false religions
mvitt86 1 year ago
Stop putting God in a box people... Seriously it's not cool
SangoandMirokufreak3 1 year ago
Religion is a myth and the our USA history is been a lie told many time that it became true. Paul revere did not deliver the message it was issereal Bissel n christopher Columbus didn't sit for a potrait n his story originally came from a book since that was there fox news or any media repeating it until it's true
8o8riddim 1 year ago
religion is myth, history is fact and the two do not mix
ExtraordinaryTriumph 1 year ago
You are all damned, and I pitty you all.
TheRexty 1 year ago
@TheRexty Finally, a sensible comment! We seem to be the only ones here to understand that these fools will surely pay for denying the existence of Lord Brahma... Right?
MomSaysImCool 1 year ago
@TheRexty, congratulations. You literally have more mercy than your "God." I think it makes more sense to worship you.
dave4248 1 year ago
@dave4248 ...A lot of Christians are happy with there life & 99% of the time are good honest people. So if someone's a Christian who has a good life and they are a nice person, do good things etc... why would you want to ruin that? Because really it just makes you look like an ass hole who hates his own life & are trying to make other people suffer for it.
MrTopsykretts11 1 year ago
@MrTopsykretts11 /////////someone's a Christian who has a good life and they are a nice person, do good things/////////
//////////// you look like an ass hole/////////
Yeah, you sound like a "nice person" who does "good things" (sarcasm alert)
Then again to be fair to the christians, you could be an atheist masquerading as a christian.
dave4248 1 year ago
@dave4248 1: That doesn't make any sense. 2: you obviously don't know how to use sarcasm because that didn't even make sense 3: that wasn't even a real answer. & 4: this has nothing to do with me, i was speaking in general to everybody so don't through your toys out of your pram just yet okay?
MrTopsykretts11 1 year ago
@MrTopsykretts11 //////////don't through your toys out of your pram just yet okay////////
WTF?
dave4248 1 year ago
@dave4248 I'm going to have to agree with dave4248 on this one. MrTopsykretts11, if you were a Christian, you wouldn't be calling dave4248 an asshole, or a baby referring to the pram incident, whether they are or aren't, it's just plain rude and you're disgracing our name as Christians by doing so. For all I know, dave4248 could be right and you are an aetheist, but I can't really prove that. This is a message to all Christians cussing down others. Where is your Christianity people?
Victorio667553 1 year ago
@TheRexty and I pity those that can't read their own scripture. Assuming your Christian since that's what the entire video is about, you surely must have realized that the Bible is one large contradiction. It claims ludicrous happenings with 0 evidence, in fact many things like Noah's flood have been disproved as such an occurrence would have been apparent in sedimentary layers.
It claims a being that murdered millions is forgiving and loving... answer me why?
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
The Gnostics were the first "Christians" anyway, they were taught by Simon the Magus and Dositheus who both claimed to be the Messiah, and they were from the Essenes who proclaimed the coming of the Teacher of Righteousness (i.e. Dositheus) and the Essenes learnt from the Pythagoreans, and the Pythagoreans from the Egyptians.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Have you researched the early church or read scholars who take the positon such as Robert Eiseman (James the bother of Jesus-1,000 pages long), who actually wonders if Jesus existed, that the original church was in Jerusalem and was a Jewish not gnostic cult led by James, Jesus and Peter. It was nothing like what Christianity finally became because the Christianity of Paul won the battle for doctrine and pratice.
boblackey1 1 year ago
There was no Jesus of the Gospels; he's fiction; he's a product of the beliefs of that time. The world of pagan and gnostic syncretism ensured that eventually all the cults would merge as it did in Egypt throughout its history; then it only took someone to write something down and fabricate a pseudo-historical account and then burn older books which would have proven the new religion; the new account of things to be a copy-cat.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 With all due respect, you can't find but only two or three scholars and historians who would agree with that. The Gnostics didn't deny Jesus walked the earth, but that he was not a real human. The Jews took the position that Jesus was born out of wedlock with a Roman Soldier as his real father. Almost ALL scholars and historians are certain Jesus was executed by Pilate around 30 CE. And born in the fall between 4 and 7 BCE.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Where do you find that Christians burned older books?? What about Tacitus saying Christus the origin of the name Christian, an evil superstition which spread from Judea to Rome or Pliny and other writings which trash Christianity. Why did they not burn those?? I imagine a Christian dressed up the TF by Josephus which originally was probably not nice to Jesus.
boblackey1 1 year ago
Did you forget the library of Alexandria?
They probably didn't burn them because they thought it gave them evidence for Christ. (though I'v read that the passge that alludes to Jesus Christ in Tacitus is probably a forgory)
The passage of Josephus is thought to be a Christian interpolation. Josephus was an orthodox Jew -- He wouldn't have said that.
danieljliversLXXXIX 1 year ago
@boblackey1 The Library at Alexandria. Tacitus has derived his information from Christians. And isn't there a passage in Tacituys works which mentions "Christianos" when in fact, underneath the ink there is "Chrestianos". The forgers ink!
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 The oldest surviving copies of Tacitus only date to the 11 century. The original is claimed by historians circa 116 CE. There is one manuscript where under ultra-vilote light, it seems the scribe made a correction and erased the "e" to make it into an "i". According to a book I have on Tacitus, close to 100% of scholars and historians accept the passage as genuine. Per Tacitus: Christ origin of name Christian. Crucified by Pilate. Christianity a superstition.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 It is only speculation by some that Tacitus derived his information from Christians. Tacitus could have consulted Roman records or knew the story for years and well before the first Christians came before him.Nobody knows how he knew. My view is when Christ was crucified by Pilate in 30 CE, it was not a big event and just another of hundreds who went to the Roman cross.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 I will have to check on the Library at Alexandria. I think the first distruction there was called Caesar's fire which some say Caesar's men set fire to it by mistake. Then an Emperor who became a Christian ordered all pagan temples destroyed in about 390CE. And didn't the Muslims in the 600s CE sack what was left?
boblackey1 1 year ago
Don't forget that before the arrival of Christianity there had been numerous godman cults circulating the Greco-Roman world. One of them was Serapis, and another was Mithras. Then there was already the discourses and plays of Plato, and the Bacchic Mysteries, and the Pythagoreans.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Many scholars accept the evidence that the first Christian church was a Jewish movement and was in Jerusalem. It involved Jesus, James who was Jesus' brother, John the Baptist (perhaps Jesus and James cousin) and was not at all like what Christianity became under Paul and later injections of pagan ideas. Paul even admits in his letters that he fought with Peter and James over doctrine.
boblackey1 1 year ago
I don't believe it was in Jerusalem; it was located in Jerusalem viz-a-viz the gospel writers, but all the fragments of these gospels come from outside of Jerusalem. Mark wrote at Alexandria in Egypt. This is where the Oxyrnchus fragment was found from John's gospel. I don't believe Christianity started in Jerusalem; I believe that there were Jewish factions like Essenes and Pharisees but not a Christian sectarian cult. Some of Pauls letters are Catholic forgeries, don't forget.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch "UVIDEOSU" Channel video series
"New Science - Now Proves Jesus Christ"
was crucified and resurrected
and..."the gospel on the shroud" series THE NEW EVIDENCE!
uvideosu 1 year ago
@uvideosu That can't possibly be correct. There is NOTHING that proves Jesus Christ existed or Alexander the Great or Josephus or the Apostle Paul ect. The written record(Bible, writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Philo etc etc ) are but copies of copies of copies with originals long lost. The New Testament copies are much closer to the origin dates scholars give than say Josephus or Tacitus and most others. The Shroud is very interesting but it needs an earlier carbon date.
boblackey1 1 year ago
Check out a site that lists the REAL Historical and documented evidences concerning the Bible and Jesus, rather than the proposed ,opinionated and unbacked suggestions presented by beyondbeliefmedia.
Here's the site:
w w w . thedevineevidence . com
Lets get educated in history people.
Lut41 1 year ago
There is no REAL historical documented evidence of the Bible and Jesus. It all comes from hearsay, and pseudo-history. We don't even have any original copies of the Gospels!
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 No original copies of Josephus or Tacitus or anything from the first century. Just copies of copies of copies. Actually Josephus, written in the first century, only goes back to the 10th century. A fragment of John's gospel has been dated at 125 CE. That is much closer. The gospel to the Hebrews which is even older, doens't even exist. They know it did because the Church Fathers in the second, third and fourth centuries mention and quote from it.
boblackey1 1 year ago
I forgot about that; no originals of Josephus or Tacitius either.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Thats right. We have to trust the scribes who copied all ancient writings by hand over the centuries. The New Testament has the most copies dating back well over a thousand years, about 15,000 and there are differences between them but Dr. Bart Ehrman says most are honest mistakes made by scribes. Almost a thousand years between Josephus' originals and the oldest copies.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Well I should say as a layman who trusts the scholars and historians, I'm convinced the modern tools of historical investigation they use working with the oldest copies of various manuscripts convinces me that Jesus Christ did exist as did Alexander the Great, Pilate, Paul etc. Many skeptics doubted Pilate existed until 1961 when an arch was found dedicated to Pilate. But does that absolutely prove it? You have to go with what is most likely.
boblackey1 1 year ago
I think it is most likely that Jesus never existed and that what really started it all off was that the Jews remembered a Yeshua (like those mentioned in the Talmud) who went round Jerusalem cursing the people and was hung on a tree. Later the Jews remembered this person and set him up as someone who was a lot more than he was supposed to be.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Well that doesn't seem to work IF the vast majority of historians and scholars are correct. The original church in Jerusalem was run by James who almost all agree was Jesus' brother. The Jews position for centuries is mostly Jesus was born out of wedlock with his actual father being a Roman soldier. So if you want to hang with the majority of experts, Jesus existed.
boblackey1 1 year ago
I think a few historians, and especially scholars have a "faith-based" outlook on Bible history. Some historians believe as I do, and have weighed up the evidence or lack of it, and made the same conclusions. Someone would make a difference conclusion, but you'd have to be a Christian to believe Jesus existed; if you believe he didn't exist or he was just a man, then you really shouldn't be a believer or Christian. If he was just a man, then what's the point in believing in the gospels?
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 The scholar I follow the most is James D. Tabor, PhD and he is not a Christian but is convinced the evidence supports a historical Jesus. Tabor also supports the view held my many Jews that Jesus had a natural father and was born out of wedlock. Also the majority of skeptical scholars believe Jesus was just a man thus they could not believe the gospel.
boblackey1 1 year ago
In what way does he believe that Jesus was historical?If he believes it, then why is he not a Christian already? There was a Jesus (aka ben Damneus) around that time. He was a high priest under Herod Agrippa, but he was nothing like the Gospel Jesus; he is a work of fiction. I doubt even that there was anything historical there in the gospels at all; but it is only my opinion.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Tabor has made the study of historical Jesus and the origin of Christianity his life's work. PhD from University of Chicago in these fields. Tabor is convinced from his work that Jesus was born in the fall between 4 and 7 BCE out of wedlock to Miriam and a Roman soldier in Nazareth or close by. His half brother James was head of the original Christian movement. Was executed by Ponitus Pilate about 30 CE.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Also there where MANY who had the name Jesus in Christ's time. That is why Josephus usually would use titles such as John THE BAPTIST or James, brother of Jesus called Christ, rather than just John or James or Jesus. Jesus Son of Damneus is another example.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 Indeed. But Josephus' works have been doctored by Christian scribes. Where his books have not been doctored he did mention individuals with the name of "Yeshu" or "Yeshua", which is Joshua, and Joshua is Ioshu in Egypt.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 How do you know where Josephus has NOT been doctored? The only copies of Josephus were ALL copied by Christian scribes and the oldest date only to the 10th century. Just a few who support the Jesus myth theory want to throw out any mention of Jesus of Nazareth by Josephus. The rest accept the shorter "James brother of Jesus called Christ" except many think it may had said "so-called Christ".
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 I don't know 100% of course but it looks as if the Christians did doctor the works of Josephus; they even used his books to base the stories of their characters, especially Paul's journey through the Med. There was no "Jesus of Nazareth"; the Greek is "Nazaraioi" which is not the name of a town. The problem with the Josephus passage is that falls back on the Christian interpolation for reference therefore both must be spurious.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 The view Luke used Josephus as a source is not widely accepted by scholars and historians. Many traditional historians do place Jesus' birth a Nazareth even though the Bible says it was Bethlehem. Only place in Josephus where most scholars think a Christian scribe tampered with or "glossed" the passage is the so-called TF. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman, PhD has removed the parts that he feels are not original with Josephus and mention of the Bible Jesus is still there.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 And don't forget the Apostle Matthew is viewed by a great number of scholars and the Church Fathers writing in the second, third and fourth century as an actual eyewitness to Jesus of Nazareth. There is not great certainty that Paul ever actually saw Jesus, but Paul claims to have met James and Peter who knew the Jesus in the flesh.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@boblackey1 But the Church Fathers inherited second and third-hand literature, and they also wrote things which were clearly ludicrous, such as Origens attack on Celsus. The Church Fathers tried to prove that so and so were eye-witnesses and to that extent they misunderstood these writings. And all the gospels were written by anonymous authors. This is spurious history.
martynblackburn1977 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Some of the Church Fathers also claimed to be disciples of John who was said to be an eyewitness to Jesus and one of his followers. The Gospel to the Hebrews was NOT written by an anonymous author but by Matthew. There enough scholars who agree with this to fill a large room. Here in my area, James Tabor, PhD University of Chicago supports the view Jesus was born out of wedlock to Miriam and a Roman Soldier. Read his Jesus Dynasty.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 Many scholars support the view that Matthew wrote the Gospel to the Hebrews in the Hebrew launguage before the gospels found in the New Testament were written and this gospel was a source for the canonical gospels. Edwards, Nicholson, Hilgenfield, Zahn, Harrack, Handmann, Kruger, McGiffert, Ropes and many others support this view and they say it is very close to a historical fact that this IS the Matthew who actually saw Jesus.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@martynblackburn1977 And Church Fathers Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome writing in the second century, some third century, ALL claim the Gospel to the Hebrews was written by Matthew in the Hebrew lauguage and this Matthew WAS the tax collector and later follower of Jesus. Of course this gospel is lost today. But almost ALL scholars and historians accept it as having existed in the early centuries of CE.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@Lut41 Jesus isn't meantioned in history, only in the Bible. The Gospel writers were merely weaving myths based on the teachings of a gaggle of itinerant rabbis and giving it a dramatic twist to appeal to their audience. You can't prove Bible stories are literally true by quoting the Bible or citing "eyewitnesses" who only appear in its pages.
MrDominex 1 year ago
"Take away the folklore from the bible, and all you have is begat begat begat begat"
Exactly, and a lot of other things like stoning your neighbor, genocide, breaking baby's skulls, and bears ripping children into pieces (guy who wrote 2 Kings must really hate kids).
Then Jesus came, so everything became cute and cuddly (that was after he got bled dry by the crucifixion), and everyone is now tap-dancing with the holy spirit.
shoulderkolibri 1 year ago
Isaiah 7:14 gives u his real name y people still believe in this jesus & christ the name cristo comes from a satanic cult in land of helens new name is Greece that paul enemy of Immanuel gave him this title & started the cult christianity when Immanuel never taught none of this lies so christianity is the Anti-Truth read the biggest threat to all earth religions the book TALMUD JMMANUEL & b free from all lies of religions WAKE UP U LATE. PEACE B ON EARTH & AMONG ALL BEINGS
distortedhumans 2 years ago
Blasphemy.....This is Madness....This is SPARTA..lol
nyrnyuk 2 years ago
The religious are conditioned to dismiss facts that contradict their faith. You can't reason with someone who puts stock in faith and ignores reason. In the end I believe we all go the same place. What kind of God would judge people harshly for not believing in the unbelievable?
TheSemievolved 2 years ago 2
@TheSemievolved now that's true in the case for some of my Christian brothers and sisters there, and I'm not saying this to offend anyone who is Christian, I'm just saying the truth, but not all Christians are like this my friend. What if there was a person out there (doesn't have to be Christian) who had countless amounts of scientific, historic etc. evidence to say that a God can exist, just like Evolution has it's own evidence not to prove, but to speculate. What then does religion become?