That whole "of course he was crucified was would they make that up" should have u on the fence. This person is clearly biased. I mean by that account if we asked her "Should we kill gay men" (Leviticus 20:13) she would say "Of course, why would they make that up?" If we asked "If a woman is not betrothed and get raped; should her rapist go to jail or just marry the victim?" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) she would say "Of course the rape victim has no say and needs to marry her rapist, I mean... why would they make that up?" Her logic and reasoning is faulty, circular and highly biased. This is clearly an member of the christian faith, trying to insert some historical worth and therefore some validity to a non-sensical belief system that is full of contradictions and immoral practices. Pls be more critical
The Life of Brian is probably more accurate in the actual rise of the cult of Jesus and Christianity than any believer would ever want to contemplate. Comedy gold indeed. It's one of the funniest movies ever made.
@@jdjones4825 Ya but it was 2000 years ago so that's really our evidence that any ancient historical figures existed some historian wrote is down some time, Jesus probably existed his 12 apostles went in pairs in 6 different directions some to India some to Rome some to Ethiopia 40 years after jesus's death the first gosepsl were written by the apostles followers writing down what they'd said so it's not just this one guy paul it's 12, also it would be a bit bizare if they made the whole thing up as a joke said it to people who didn't take kindly to it got martyred and then 2000 years later it's the worlds leading religion
@@smoutube1197we don't know if the deciples scriptures are legitimate and even if they are I think once the paul edits occurred the Christian branch of Judaism was eternally "bastardised" from its original free flowing sentiments..
It would have been nice if the hundreds of other men the Romans had killed because they claimed to be the 'Messiah' prior to the Jesus death had been examined. I've read elsewhere that it's at least 200. That's a lot of very naughty boys.
Well the Abrahamic God was no stranger to killing children by the first century and Christians argue Jesus was God 🤷♀️ but also that gospel was never canon and considered heresy (not sure what professionals think about it though, it's always difficult to find what they think in relation to Christianity)
I was born into a Christian family, but no longer consider myself a member of the faith. I find the historiography of Christianity so fascinating. Always a pleasure to hear Professor Bond speak on the subject.
Really? She's so chock full of utter gibberish I can't cope and I've watch 11seconds and had to stop There is no one in history better attested: pliny the younger, Suetonius, Josephus, plus about 20 others independently attest Jesus. We know the sermons preached in corinth. from 17 years after the crucifixion. She's just a nut job with a badge mate
when i saw this i thought the same thing.. but I didn't feel like she was pushing facts without evidence. She was trying to find evidence without just saying yes he performed miracles.
Loving the rational and well-informed debate in the comments where everyone apparently possesses more historical knowledge about biblical times than an actual professor at the University of Edinburgh... Well done you. You really "got" whoever it was you think you're getting.
You do know that there are only so many books on this subject and anybody can read them and have an opinion about them just as valid as this professor. Most are on the internet.
@@paulryan5150 OK, but being a professor is way above the level of "reading all the books". She spends her life attending conferences, reading academic papers from all over the world, doing original research in museums, writing papers, which are then peer reviewed. She'll be up-to-date on all the latest ideas and will be expected to have an informed opinion on them and she'll also be asked to review them. She's probably able to read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. She's been doing this for decades. She might even have to do some teaching! If you're not an academic, you don't have access to this world.
no one doubts her knowledge - her independence of thought not so much. She is essentially a theologian and biblical scholar of fan fiction of the 1st AD. You know the saying about when your paycheck depends on fitting the facts to match your foregone conclusion ...
Just wanted to remind all the smug armchair experts in the comments here that most historians think Jesus was real. If he was the son of God is another matter entirely. The evidence for Jesus is better than most historical figures who's existence no one denies.
As an atheist, I despair at the levels some people go to to assert he didn't exist. It is pure wishful thinking. If you use Occam's razor, it is far far more likely that a ten-a-penny preacher was crucified and then his supporters spun the story in a way that resonated with people, than the idea that a group of people purposely invented a logically inconsistent story based around a guy being crucified. It literally makes no sense.
I'd like to remind you that history is not a political numbers game, and everything not written AT THE TIME is not valid evidence of anything, but gossip and spin.
Notably, there are scant documents that date back centuries that support the claims made about the majority of historical figures from that era. She is not claiming that he is divinely born, as Alexander the Great was supposedly born to Zeus; rather, she is stating that the evidence for his existence is consistent with accepted historical accounts.
There are no historical accounts. A couple of guys a generation or two afterwards who claim to be his inheritors of authority are hardly unbiased sources
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I completely disagree. There is enough in the New Testament that are not fanciful stories of miracles etc to believe these are actual people. As mentioned, the best evidence is the crucifixion in that it would make no sense to make up a religion on that basis. There is plenty of other very good circumstantial reasons to mean the default is that he was real. Whether we know a single thing about him other than that he was crucified is another matter entirely.
Judging from the comments, I feel that most people would be surprised by how little evidence we have about historical figures and their life and works at that time period. Even with major historical figures like Alexander The Great. Most of what we know about him come from Arrian who lived hundreds of year after Alexanders death.
With Alexander the Great one can theorize his presence by the archeological data of torched cities and the physical evidence of the bodies left from his battles. Physical evidence for his existence? None at this time.
And that's the thing isn't it. So many of our most trusted sources for figures of antiquity are generations removed from said figures, or they're outright unreliable. Take Suetonius for example, who gave us various accounts of notable Roman figures. He had access to archives that many scholars did not and thus can be viewed as a trusted source, but he also loved the more salacious rumours of those figures and thus can at times be viewed as the TMZ of antiquity.
Im a bit late, but people like alexander had huge impact on the world. Just think about someone conquering the greatest empire on earth, creates one of the most populated citys on earth (alexandria), becomes pharao and ... Those are things that have also high archeological evidence, from people like jesus dont't have.
Alexander the great was way older than jesus like 400 hundreds years early.... we got a lot of things about people who lived in Jesus time, like Julius Ceasar, Octavian or even the China's rulers were getting register and people write about them at that time, etc. But it is true that if you were not a ruler or someone with power yeah... you wouldn't into history, with a little bit of luck and if you work hard maybe your name would have survive but not your life, your thoughts or something. And jesus wasnt any of that so very impressive that he made that kind of impact at the time.
As a Christian this is so fascinating to listen to. The newer shows and movies are trying to portray Jesus in a real-world manner and style, so it’s great to hear a historian give a knowledgeable and lifelike?? Piecing together of what like during Jesus might have been like.
It's worth pointing out that most historical figures from that period are based on very few sources dating centuries after their death. She's not saying he's the son of God, like how Alexander the great was considered the son of Zeus, just that the evidence that he existed stands up to standard historical scrutiny
He existed just as much as the other thousands of guys named jesus existed. Throw in a bunch of writers and storytellers (with various agendas) and you've got entertaining fairy tales at the very least.
@@steveofthewildnorth7493no, actually, we don’t. Fortunately most people aren’t ideologically obsessed atheists who want to contort history to suit their own purposes.
@@steveofthewildnorth7493 Xtian apologists do but critical biblical scholars who do scholarship based on evidence do think a traveling apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jesus was around at the time and had a following. It obviously does not mean Christian teachings themselves are true, just that he was probably a guy who existed. Look up "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?" by Dan McClellan on TH-cam.
...except the one who, very famously, did...3 times! John 18:15-27 No torture needed either - just 3 questions. It's weird how Christians don't even know the basic "facts" about their religion.
@@themoon9442you clearly don’t know the context. Peter never denied Jesus’ existence, he denied knowing him after he was identified as one of the apostles. However he regretted and repented right after and ended up being crucified for his faith by Emperor Nero
@@kedda4515 Oh dear... 1. "you clearly don’t know the context." I grew up in a society where Christianity was the state religion. That means Bible readings at the beginning of every school day, lessons in Christianity and Catechism every week, Sunday "school" and church every week, congregational practice every Thursday, choir practice, prayers before meals, religious shows for hours on TV, the whole liturgical dirge, not just Christmas and Easter, but Ascension Day, Candlemas, Lent, Palm Sunday, Harvest Festival, Advent, Epiphany, ... You can rest assured that I know the context. 2. "Peter never denied Jesus’ existence, he denied knowing him after he was identified as one of the apostles." ...which is EXACTLY what @ChrisSmith-lo2kp said he didn't do. His OP says, "none ever recanted what they experienced with Jesus". It doesn't say "none ever denied Jesus’ existence", does it? You just made that up. What is the difference between none "ever recanted what they experienced with Jesus" and none "denied knowing him after he was identified as one of the apostles"? You are agreeing with me (and the Gospel of St John). 3. "However he regretted and repented right after and ended up being crucified for his faith by Emperor Nero" Yes. So now you admit that even St Peter agreed that one of the apostles recanted what they experienced with Jesus. It's good to have him on board too. As I said before, "It's weird how Christians don't even know the basic 'facts' about their religion." When confronted with such a "fact", they have to resort to making up a strawman argument and misrepresenting each other.
@@themoon9442 But that is Saint Peter you are talking about, the one even more famous for founding the largest church in the world. Ne denied knowing him to get out of a tight spot when he was recognised and then deeply regretted it after. The moral from it was that forgiveness was open to him and he didn't lose the love of Jesus just because in that moment he lost love for Jesus. He later was crucified upside down and was true to his faith to the end, never repeating that same mistake.
@@genericcommenter1267 So you also agree that one of the apostles "recanted [yes, I know - weird verb] what they experienced with Jesus". Good to have you on board too! Just to remind you, this is the original post... "all of the apostles were martyred and died horribly, yet under this extreme torture, none ever recanted what they experienced with Jesus" This is just not true at all. As I said... One of the apostles very famously did recant what they experienced with Jesus...3 times! John 18:15-27 No torture needed either - just 3 questions. It's weird how Christians don't even know the basic "facts" about their religion and, when the facts are pointed out to them, they go into long explanations of how this somehow didn't count!
Its interesting because the New Testament states Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. However, that crime was punishable by stoning. The crime of crucifixion was reserved for inciting rebellion or insurrection against the Roman state.
The Jews were not allowed to administer capital punishment under the Romans. The gospels say that the Jews incited Pilate and the Romans to crucify him by charging him rebellion against Rome.
Blasphemy was the temple authorities acussation. But he was presented as a rebell against Rome to Pilatos. That Is why pilatos first really doesnt care, and the reason jesus Is mocked as a false king of the jews. A messiah Is both a religious and polítical figure.
Another way you can read this from the eyes of Apostle Paul is that although you are right that he shouldn’t have been hanged on a tree for blasphemy, God purposefully made it so so he can rightfully redeem us from the curse of the law as it is written in Galatians 3:13 - ”Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus” Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says “a hanged man is cursed by God”.
OMG!! I love "biblical time machine"! Didnt realize who it was until I heard her voice - fully recommend the podcast, even as an agnostic. Great fun time
They're known as the Apocrypha - basically a series of ecumenical councils: Ephesus, Chalcedon and most famously the council of Nicea, gradually edited what was deemed acceptable to be in the New Testament. A lot of the gospels and traditions that don't make it are because they don't fit into the Nicene Creed interpretation of Jesus, and also, on a political level, they weren't compatible with State Worship of the Emperor which was mandatory in Rome. Some of the more well known apocrypha include the Gospel of Thomas, of Mary, of James, Philip, Judas, Peter, Nicodemus, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Hebrews, the Nazarenes, and so on. A lot of these remained in Christian denominations that were outside the control of the Roman Empire, such as the Nestorians and Assyrian Churches of the middle East, or the Coptic Christians of Egypt and Ethiopia. This also explains why Islam has many traditions about the infancy of Jesus which we don't have in the new testament, as the Quran incorporates much of the Middle Eastern, non-Roman apocrypha.
@@ChrisRowe they are often also a bit crazy. It's often treated as a bit of a conspiracy, but it's not hard to see why early Christians rejected a gospel that claimed Jesus was the snake in the garden of Eden.
@khayegarais9643 this reminds me of a passage from chuang-tzu: Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu were crossing Hao river by the dam. Chuang said: "See how free the fishes leap and dart: that is their happiness." Hui replied: "Since you are not a fish, how do you know what makes fishes happy?" Chuang said: "Since you are not I, how can you possibly know that I do not know what makes fishes happy?" Hui argued: "If I, not being you, cannot know what you know, it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know what they know." Chuang said: "Wait a minute! Let us get back to the original question. What you asked me was 'How do you know what makes fishes happy?' From the terms of your question, you evidently know that I know what makes fishes happy. I know the joy of fishes in the river through my own joy, as I go walking along the same river." perhaps we and lice are not so different as to preclude them from attaining holiness
09:55 There might not be any evidence to confirm this as such, but I imagine that if a deep dive was done to see how often the Bible or other records show how often he closed a door when leaving a room, we could make a fair assumption as to yes or no. I have not been a believer since I was 12, but growing up I can safely recall never hearing tell of him closing a door. That would lead me to assume that yes, he was in fact born in a barn had he existed. Which, I'm happy to accept he was a real person.
As an atheist, I'll accept that Jesus as a person was real. Was he the song of god, or performed miracles? Doubtful. Someone existing vs someone doing all the things they said were done are two different things
I’m a Christian and i don’t normally comment on religious stuff online because it usually goes nowhere, but hey I’m feeling spontaneous. I believe that he’s the son of God, but also agree about your statement, that miracle claim doesn’t equal miracle truth. They’re totally two different things. If you read the gospels, the most stark evidence Jesus uses for his own deity is the prophecies of himself in the Hebrew Bible. That, and how his teaching impacts my life, are two of the biggest things that spark my faith. The miracles he does mean to reinforce the invisible reality of redemption, and that forgiveness is much more important than the physical healing. None of this you can ever 100% prove, of course. I walk by faith, not by sight. Thanks!
@jonahrobo5969 I'm not interested in trying to deconvert you, and doubt I could anyway, but have you ever actually looked at many of those prophecies? Some of them are erroneous translations, and some of them have nothing to do with predicting a future Messiah. They are the predictive example of quote mining. Then you have the bizarre instance where there is a prophecy that references something that doesn't exist in the NT.
The point is there were many competing cults with very similar figures, themes, stories, dates; being aware of this says much more about what needs to be understood. Speaking exclusively about whether Jesus alone was real while denying the rest is in fact presenting and protecting the Christian point of view alone.
Loved this one. I am a former protestant member that never really believed, but was always fascinated by Jesus. Hearing this kind of perspective is so refreshing and interesting.
@andreascj73 what is the point of your comment? I go online and make a positive comment, you don't know anything about me, and your instinct is to condescendly come on to point out something I already know? Just keep your mouth shut buddy, and move on.
@@mike9512 Nothing condescending in my comment. But this is common theological knowledge. It would have been the same if you were surprised by some common medical knowledge and thought it refreshing being a former football coach or something, and you were told by a doctor that it is common knowledge. Instinct? There is no instinct in replying to a comment, mate.
15:40 Yes, Pilate was 100% real. The Israel Museum in Jerusalem contains the Pilate Stone, which contains a partially intact inscription mentioning Pilate by name. The stone is consistent with what we know of Pilate's life from textual sources, so yes, we know Pilate definitely existed. 20:30 Jesus was also a major figure in the (now nearly-extinct) former major world religion of Manichaeism.
Though I didn't know about the Pilate ring, I was surprised that the professor made no mention of the Pilate Stone, the single most famous archaeological attestation of the historicity of Pilate.
@@barrymoore4470 Well yes, but ofc still ther eis debate, as for example the stone wekans in itself tacitus acount of him. And as a source alone is never good, its betetr when backed up by others, which in this case would be tacitus. But as the stone makes clear the Pilate there is not a proconsul, as tacitus says, bot a legatus from the proconsul of Syria, this shows either: tacitus was wrong (and therefor can not back up the stone, which then is only backed up by the christan-sources itself) or the stone is wrong/means another Pilatus, as tacitus means.
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals ( c. 116 CE), book 15, chapter 44. The relevant passage reads: "called Christians by the populace.
Jesus also loved cats. Specifically Persian cats. He had 3 of them. He named them Mary and Joe after his parents, and lastly Curly. Curly was heavier than the other two cats.
I understand the argument that Jesus was not the first Christian, but I am unsure about the assertion that Christianity did not emerge as a separate religion from Judaism until much later, even after Paul. I thought that Paul argued that gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism to be accepted into the Kingdom of God. My understanding is that Paul argued with Peter and James (Jesus' brother) that gentiles did not need to adhere to the Jewish laws about food (and presumably circumcision, but I am less sure about this). If that is the case, then it seems to me that Paul was founding a separate religion from Judaism even if he didn't call it Christianity. Have I misunderstood Paul's writings? I would very much appreciate Prof Bond's clarification. Thank you.
There were many different forms of Christianity at that time. 'Heresy:Jesus Christ and the other Sons of God'by Catherine Nixey is a very good book on the subject.
None of that makes any sense, because Christianity as we understand it, did not exist before the council of nicea 325 CE and the first evidence of AD dating ocurrs in the 6th century.
I can tell you that from a Roman perspective, Christians were seen as a Jewish sect until the reign of Vespasian in 70 AD. This indicates that most Christians at the time looked and acted like other Jews.
I suppose the question is when does something become a separate religion rather than a branch of a religion or some members of a religion that have slightly different views than the mainstream This happens all the time in Christianity and islam and judaism but we dont count them as separate religions
Josephus was born decades after Jesus alleged death, Jesus didn't appear in Josephus's first history ,but only in his second history which overlapped dates, Josephus's 2nd history followed the Roman propaganda of the time which Josephus was personally beholden to.
Josephus is a later Greek source widely debunked in actual scholarship. It's generally the bible bashers who tout Josephus about, usually misquoting him and giving him more credit than deserved
@@infozencentre No, Josephus was a Jewish historian that apologists hate since he exposes lots of blunders in Luke-Acts as he had access to actual Roman records since he was close with the Flavians.
@@infozencentre Jospehus was Jewish not Greek and he wasn't debunked. He is widely regarded as non-Christian source on Jesus, though it is agreed his fragment was subject to some inetroplation.
So many comments on this video exude a high degree of ignorance from the commenters. Jesus is as much a historical character as Spartacus or Alexander the Great. Just because we do not have archaeological evidence of his body (like we don’t have the remains of Alexander or Spartacus) doesn’t mean he didn’t exist. It’s not just the Biblical accounts that tell of him, but also historians and writers that (while not contemporary to Jesus) were contemporary to the times of the early Christian communities-historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. His historical existence can be detached from the religious/supernatural claims of the faithful.
Also, don’t forget the evidence in Pompeii. Also, saying their is no evidence of Jesus is like saying theirs no evidence that Caesar lived. We believe Caesar lived because we see the evidence in the record as a result of his life and it’s implications. I love how people want to apply a different standard to Jesus then they do any other historical figures.
As someone who is very involved in the study of cults, it seems as though he was a kind of cult leader of his time with dedicated followers who believed he had healing powers.
@@barrymoore4470 I'm a little bit skeptical. nowadays we normally use the word cult to denote a religious movement that is isolating, polarizing, manipulating. members are not free to come and leave as they want, they have to cut ties to their families, they need to give money to the leader or perform unpaid labour etc.
@@gordonlekfors2708 Jesus enjoined his disciples and would-be followers to ignore their family ties and obligations (let the dead bury the dead being one example) in committing to their path with him. This would be consistent with modern notions of cult.
There are two Gospels that start by listing Joseph's genealogy, and although they differ in parts, both affirm Joseph was a direct descent, by the male line, to the old Kings of the Jews, like David and Solomon. Joseph had a credible claim to the crown, and that would give his son, Jesus, a legitimate claim to the crown. The fact that he was traveling the country and gathering a following made him a credible threat to Rome. The inscription on the cross was not mockery.
I went to the cave where Jesus was born and it was so beautiful, all the walls where painted with the story of the nativity and it was just bewildering. I done a whole Christian tour of Israel on the days leading up to Palm Sunday and the whole experience was just mind-blowing. It was one of the greatest few days of my life and I would recommend others to do a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. It’s a real shame what’s happening over there right now. There was a time when the three Abrahamic religions lived together in Jerusalem in harmony, wouldn’t it be great to just have peace over there now ...
20:25 Jesus is also a prophet in Manichaeism. This religion also venerates the Buddha and the Zoroaster, and at one time it was the dominant religion in Persia, and it has at various points been practiced from Spain to China. Today it's on the verge of extinction after centuries of persecution and is only practiced in a few villages of China.
I have the feeling she missed the question at 13:20 "Did Herod try to kill Jesus?" the question probably was referring to Herod the Great's attempts to kill the newborn Jesus, i.e. the slaughter of the innocents. Is there historical evidence for that?
@@nankosa82 neither were Matthew, mark, Luke or John, but I bet you believe their accounts. Believe it or not, high ranking officials such as, yknow, kings, had their movements well documented
One small addition: Jesus is present in a couple of religions, not just Christianity and Islam. He was one of the 4 prophets in manichaeism, which was a major world religion in the 3rd-7th centuries. In the druze faith, he is one of the 7 prophets. In the Bahá'i faith, he is a manifestation of God. Some Hindis consider him an avatar (an incarnation of a god) or sadhu (a holy person). Some Buddhists, including the current Dalai Lama, also consider him a budhisatva.
I enjoy the crossovers in many different religions that you could say sound like they could be the same person/deity, with just some slight differences that would matter to the people of that area at the time.
Correct me if I am wrong but Pilate had Jesus crucified because the Saducces and Pharisees along with Caiaphas wanted him killed and Jews weren't allowed to do that so they sent Jesus to Pilate to have him tried and crucified. So it wasn't just the Romans responsible for this act but also the Jewish authorities who felt threatened by Jesus's teachings.
That's how the gospels tell it, but they're a biased source. The other sources we have just don't give details about it - Josephus just says there was a preacher called Jesus who got executed. (and had a big following that didn't dissolve after his death.) The general idea that the politically powerful folks in the area didn't want him starting a revolt does make sense, though.
They could have him put to death for blasphemy, ie stoned to death, but as he seemingly avoided that, then they used first Herods and then Pilates fear of insurrection to have him dealt with under civil law rather than religous law. Judea and the whole of the Levant was a powder keg, and Pilate would not want to be seen as the person that allowed the whole thing to go up, so if he deemed Jesus to be an instigator of Jewish Independence ie a messiah, then he would want to suppress that very quickly.....so false witnesses were probably used to convince Pilate that Jesus preached insurrection and independence from Rome......nothing about him being King or his religeous views.
@jeffmartin5419 Josephus was a Jewish historian, and the mainstream Jews considered Jesus a heretic. To claim that the gospels are biased as historical documents, but that counterclaims written by someone with an opposing ideology are not is intellectually dishonest.
@wiretamer5710 the gospels and writings of Paul are contemporary historical documents. Whether or not you believe they are divinely inspired is irrelevant. The fact is they are part of the historical record, and they were written within living memory of the events described.
ACTS 11:26, probably from the 80s, has followers of The Way first being called "Christians" at Antioch. It may have been intended to have a negative connotation.
I really enjoyed this post. Thanks Prof Bond & History Hits :) My question would have been -(probably impossible to answer) - was there any proof of a resurrection :)
@@andrasszabo1570 Here's a phrase that is helpful in situations like you're describing. "I don't know" It's a quaint little phrase that trumps all probabilities and suppositions..
@@pirththeewhat? Are you saying it’s NOT probably true that Mohammed split the moon in half, Joseph Smith found gold plates and Olifat causes mischief in Micronesia? Well, as the first MusMormOliest, I can say that those things ABSOLUTELY, 100% happened*. *probably
Pliny was some time after Jesus died, and what he refers to is the Christians that he was dealing with whilst Governer of Bithynia in 110 AD, and what you refer to is his letter to Trajan and how he was to deal with the Christian community from a judical point of biew. He never actually uses the name Jesus, but rather Christ ( and not identified as a person, and the term was "as to 'a' god" of which the Romans had many and allowed the belief of a huge amount of others. So Pliny can be used regarding the early christian movements spread but nothing about Jesus as a person or him ever existing in reality
Always love listening to Helen Bond! If anyone cares to listen to her podcast you with find that there are many scholars over many disciplines that have studied the historicity of the Torah and the Bible and speak knowledgeably on how the books were assembled and what parts are historically supported. Her position that Jesus was a real man referenced not only by the Bible but by other historians of the time period does not mean that she swallows everything in the Bible as historically accurate. It is a text that is telling a story in order to support its teachings, and knowing that, it can be analyzed to separate the historical from the embellished. Did Jesus’s life happen and inspire religion? The answer is clearly YES. Was he the miracle working son of God? That’s up to you and your beliefs. Her beliefs are withheld here as she is speaking about history, not religion.
Its important point that no person who wrote the Bible, ever anticipated that anyone from the general public would be capable of reading it, let alone express an opinion about it.
That's absolutely FALSE. For example, Paul's epistles addressed to particular church communities were meant to be read, shared, throughout the church communities they were sent to.
For those among you who don't believe the whole resurrection thing, what do you think happened? 1. Dude escaped the cross somehow so he didn't actually die to begin with. 2. The people who saw him after his death were having some kind of intense dream/vision. Perhaps a trauma response. 3. It's a conspiracy. The people who saw him just wanted to be famous so they wrote a book.
1. No. Everybody dies. Maybe he escaped the cross (as Muslims usually believe). Maybe he died on the cross. Maybe he died shortly afterwards. Maybe he survived a few weeks. Maybe he went to India. Maybe he never existed. 2. We don't know. Neither do you. There are so many possibilities. Return after death was common among Mid-Eastern deities at the time. It still is in West Africa. Ask the people who saw Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson after their deaths. It's not an uncommon phenomenon, even today. Hindus and Buddhists believe that everyone comes back after death. It's not an unusual belief. 3. Maybe. Some of the people who wrote the books which ended up in the Bible seemed to want to leave their names on them. Others didn't.
Me too. But some people nowadays are seem to be very bitter at Christianity to the point they love to deny historicity of Jesus and keep mocking every expert who doesn't agree with them and seem to be trigger at any mention of Jesus. (And there is of course the other group - overly-religious ones who reject any critical academic discourse.) It's so sad how fanatical are both sides.
Because Christians do not want any kind of possible fact to interfere with their idea of what they are told to believe. It is one of the major reasons I stopped being a Christian. The church does not want you to seek knowledge or ask questions.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518I would imagine it was almost certainly religious people voting the video down, not non-religious people. There are many Christians who find it very offensive to pull apart and scrutinise their religion in this matter-of-fact manner, and the video equates Jesus’ healing abilities to those of other holy men at the time which is also taboo to lots of Christians. Christian scholars who view the subject matter purely from an academic standpoint without necessarily being believers always have comments sections full of accusations of blasphemy and other negative feedback when they make these kinds of videos online.
@@final_animal I am not talkig about voting, I am talking about comments. When this video aired, during first few hours it was flooded in comments by non-religious people who disimssed historical Jesus as fairy tale and were asking "when there will be vidoe about Santa Claus and Tooth Witch?"
You're pagan? So were the virtuous Romans, who accepted Jesus as one among many Gods, the Greeks and Romans knowing the following... An Empirical Proof of God's Existence: (1) The word 'true' entails a cognitive presence;* (2) The laws of the universe were true before they were discovered by corporeal life; therefore... (3) The laws of the universe were true before corporeal life existed, identifying the existence of a non-corporeal entity that knew the laws were true. The syllogism proves that an intelligent entity knew the laws of the universe were true before corporeal life existed, but is this non-corporeal entity God? Since the laws of the universe were always known to be true by this non-corporeal entity without the necessity of thinking about the laws of the universe, we therefore identify the infinitely knowledgeable entity with no need for thinking, which entity is known as God. -------------------------- * Only mind can divine a truth.
I'm surprised to see that you didn't tackle the question as to whether he resurrected. That would seem to be one of the most important ones to be answered.
She doesn't really know much about Judaism and her historiography reflects this. For example, he would dress like a Jew rather than a Roman. Of course they would influence each other but to suggest that Jews would be slavishly following Roman fashions is silly.
You know, I think I figured out why so many people are upset about this video. I think it's because they put a scholar to the task, who, in her research, does not enter the topic with the presupposition that Jesus was, in fact, the incarnation of a deity, and that you, as the researcher, have your eternal salvation on the line specifically when it comes to the belief in said Jesus as their lord and savior, which you know, might just maybe, in some maybe small maybe you know, possibly totally irrelevant way bias the researcher so horrendously that you could never have them honestly present this information.
I think that these comments perceived it as upseting due to the commonly managed discussions in internet about Jesus and Christianity,that are mostly directed into debunking the Christianity and Jesus.Mostly declaring in sophisticated manner or bias approach to Bible with their preassumptions that are unfortunately commonly met with,that "Bible says what it says,but we don't believe it or we very much doubt it outloud or indirectly."But that is not well-directed assumption to go with,when analyzing Bible without truly looking in it's meanings,historical evidence and dating or retoric that it uses,simply declaring,that it contradicts itself or it is written with well-prepared retoric to convince others,that it us true and the only true.In scientific sphere it is truly intelectually dishonest to go with that sort of agenda into that source, that requires more reflection than simply being biased atheist,sceptic or agnostic looking at it only having debunking or mitologylizing effort in mind.
I’m sorry, but many scholars who started out secular have come to the realization of Jesus’ deity only AFTER doing their work via secular research. The problem with your insinuation is that it leaves out the fact that those who seek to do anything via secular means go in with a presupposition of their own: that Jesus was not the Christ. Every single human being on this planet has a worldview and that worldview absolutely and unequivocally informs the way “experts” go about their research. What matters is the evidence, which we have via eye witness accounts that, to date, actual textual critics cannot deny were eye witness accounts from the first century. And given the result of Impact Events, it is very plausible that details could be remembered as if they were yesterday, whether written down a few years or decades later. That’s how trauma victims can recall every detail of something that happened to them, or how an elderly soldier who has forgotten much can clearly describe a mass tragedy like Pearl Harbor, etc.
Wow this is very impressive . A history professor who is not afraid to tell the truth about Jesus instead of bowing to the masses and going with the “accepted “ truth
I would have a lot more truck with this if most of the "evidence" for Jesus' activities didn't consist of what is written in the bible. Talk about a circular argument.
He probably existed. We have no records of teenage Jesus. Was he in the Far East learning about Buddhism during that time? Highly doubtful that he was some type of messiah sent by the magic sky fairy, but he was probably a real person. Think modern-day Joel Olsteen without the money and facelifts.
Did he even exist? What about the "silent historians". Historians who lived in the 20s, 30s, and 40s AD and they never mentioned him. A person who performed amazing miracles - walked on water, calmed the storm, resurrected the dead, and changed one liquid into another (water into wine). Nobody wrote about him when he was alive, nobody kidnapped him.
Scholars believe there was a Jewish man named Jesus who traveled around in that time period and had apocalyptic teachings but obviously those miracles are not something that can be proven.
@@TheStijg I find this very bizarre. A person with powerful, god-like skills and abilities was never mentioned. Nobody abducted him to use his skills. He could resurrect the dead. How incredible is that? He could change one substance into another. That's incredible. The Roman Empire was very bureaucratic, they wrote about everything worth mentioning and a person with magical abilities was certainly worth noting. The gospels were written by people who had never seen Jesus in person. Never. They weren't even close to him.
@@oldi184 You didn't listen her - there were many figures of miracle performers. Jesus wasn't so special to outsiders. It was his followers that made mark on history.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 I think Jesus did not exist. She often said that there is no good, hard evidence that Jesus Christ was real. And why the New Testament was written in Greek? Why not in Aramaic?
Was Jesus real? Probably. Was he the resurrected son of a god while also being that god who sacrificed himself to himself to save everyone from what he’d do to them if they didn’t worship him? Probably not
'probably'? for anyone not swayed by religious fantasy but secured in scientific facts there is no doubt that once someone died (especially after suffering the fatal torture of being crucified) there is no coming back to life, certainly no resurrection. the whole concept is utter fabrication. resurrection?!? pah, this Paul fellow ruined his whole reputation with this claim alone.
Pretty lightweight "analysis". Even a critical historicist knows that the Gospels are not historical documents. The only question is how much fiction is there. Just taking the Gospels as the Gospel truth means this is not a critical look at the subject.
There is a difference between stating that the gospels and the writings of Paul are divinely inspired, and the idea that they are historical documents. We don't believe that Achilles was an almost immortal, half god, but we do know that their was a city that was destroyed that was written about as Troy. We don't believe that Alexander the Great was the son of Zues, but we do belive he actually existed. Doubting the miracles of a text does not invalidate its historicity.
@@TheLastAssaultman0351 I would not cite Troy as your historicity defense. There exist elements of Homer's story in a Sanskrit story/myth. The theory being that the story goes back to the people speaking proto-Indo-European. It predates Troy. Yeah, there maybe a few current events maybe inspired the person (or groups of people) to re-write the existing tale using local people and locations but seeing how they started with existing material to re-write the story to their own ends, historicity is not something you should be taking from the Gospels. I take skepticism that I feel is quite warranted. There are even phrases in Homer that are definitely pre-bronze age collapse and some that are post iron age. To casually call Homer historical is to plaster over a world of fictionalization. Euhemerization is the actual technical word used. She is engaging in what I believe is a common liberal Christian apologetic tactic. Bart Erhman definitely uses it. That is to come out and say you can't take everything in the bible literally (which is demonstrably true) and then, after admitting one or two details are provably wrong, take everything else as true. (I think they do that as a dig at fundamentalists. She is tacitly saying: don't be a fundy) She mentions the nativity story. There are two irreconcilable versions of the story. There are many details that are provably wrong. Then after all that, people like Bart Erhman say what you can "prove" is that Jesus was real and that he was from Nazareth because the story element of moving him from Nazareth to Bethlehem was awkward and that the only reason to include it was if it was true. Which is a real stretch. You go to the effort of showing at least 90% is fiction of a small section of the story and then just say the rest is true because you can't disprove everything with the same certainty. Yes, proving a negative is hard. That's why the big-name anti-historicist scholar merely gives odds for Jesus' existence. He admits up front there is no good method for knowing with certainty. And since I'm not a scholar, I just stick with skepticism. As I mentioned, there are elements borrowed from existing stories. The problem with mimesis criticism is that you can't prove all of it. It really is a matter of interpretation. However, some borrowings are more obvious than others. An example is in the story of Jesus turning water into wine there is an almost word for word borrowing from The Bacchae by Euripides. No, that doesn't prove it is all fiction, but that should be a reason to be skeptical. Religious texts are often made-up bullshit. We usually aren't as close to them as we are to Joseph Smith, so the evidence of the fraud has been erased by history. Like I said, the video was very superficial. What I gave as a superficial summary of some of the critical analysis you can find nowadays. This video was fluff. It didn't even go into the depth I did with this comment.
@johnobrien6415 wow so an actual scholar of the field knows nothing compared to a commentator in TH-cam comments. People aren't trying to prove Jesus was real, this is very much the default position. Non-believers like myself, are interested in how much of it is true because there is so much that is obviously untrue. The thing you seem to misunderstand about the approach of scholars such as Ehrman, is that they are also establishing a likelihood. All of the existing sources claim Jesus came from Nazareth. This was a problem for early Christians to the point they invented a whole story to try and get him to Bethlehem. The obvious question follows: if you're inventing a Messiah who needs to be from Bethlehem, why not just say he is from Bethlehem? This is the problem Mythicists have all over. Why is it not just far more likely that a historical person had legendary aspects added to him, than a story was simply made up? The latter becomes far less likely when you remove the desire for Jesus not to be real. As for Richard Carrier and his Baynesian odds for Jesus' existence, I don't think this has ever convinced anybody, just like theists using the same method to prove 100% that God is real. It all depends on the assumptions of the person putting in the data.
So the followers of JC waited decades to a hundred years after his death to write an account? How is this a historical record? It’s more like a historian writing about the fables of Atlantis. While Jesus probably lived, the mythology written about him is just that. I was hoping for an objective review of these questions.
He's mentioned in the Pauline Epistles about 20 yrs after his death. The scholarly consensus is that a traveling apocalyptic preacher named Jesus existed and had a following but obviously the religious stuff and miracle claims are unprovable.
@@pirththee Look up the critical biblical scholar Dan McClellan here on TH-cam, he has a PhD in the Bible and the cognitive science of religion. Especially relevant is his video: "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?".
these extra canonical gospels, particularly the "Gospel" of Thomas were never "in" the Bible or referred to on any of the Biblical lists by Anthanasius or any of the early synods or later ones, any one. Thomas and these others were not actually Gospels but are spuriously referred to as such. Thomas is a Gnostic writing which is an early religion and became a Christian heresy. Elaine Pagels is the professor who so famously made something of the "gospel" not even heard of until 1945.
Well, there's Joshua in English, Jussi in Finnish, Giosue in Italian, Iosua in Romanian, aaand so on. Not Jesus exactly, but then according to the video, Jesus wasn't named Jesus either 😅
It's because in Spain in the 1500s there arose the last name ''De Jesus'' (which means ''Of Jesus'' in Spanish) This last name became very popular in Spain and so people in Spain got used to seeing ''Jesus'' in people's names. And so by the 1700s some people just started naming boys ''Jesus'' and it became a common name in Spain and other Spanish speaking places.
There is a number of books written in the bible from people who walked, talked and experienced the power of Jesus, I would urge you to read the gospels it will answer all of the relevant questions and better than this video which is sadly someone's opinion nearly 2000 years later. Jesus is the savour of the world who rose again after crucifixion being the perfect sacrifice for our sin so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life after earthly death. I pray that you realise this and all the other amazing things the bible reveals including the Holy Spirit also.
Hi Tim None of the gospels were written by people who walked, talked and experienced Jesus. They were written decades after Jesus's death and the names which we now give them (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were added later still. Helen Bond is a Professor of Christian Origins and New Testament. That means that she has spent her entire adult life studying the origin of the documents that we now call the Bible. It is you who is expressing sadly expressing someone's opinion nearly 2,000 years later.
@@alanparsons4646 No. Academia nowadays is infected with ideologues. There is barerly any credibility coming from their months. You can easily find a Professor with just as long of a Reputation as her and can outright say she's full of shite. At that point its who you want to believe. Its not Uncommon for Academia to be full of People Contradicting each other.
Amen. After seeing how the Secular world is going insane. Dawkins thought he and his Ilk could create a rational world if they got rid of religion. Instead he is very scared of this new world. He has Woke Atheist who outright deny reality. Woke Atheist whob hate him for simply being a White Male and Islam who the Woke Atheist invited in. Everytime he hears the Call for Ramadan in England he hears the Puss in Boots death Whistle. Dawkins now calls himself a "Cultural Christian" while celebrating the Decline of Faith in Britain as Islam us rising. Clown🤡
@@silverhawkscape2677 "No. Academia nowadays is infected with ideologues. There is barerly any credibility coming from their months." ? I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. Sorry. "You can easily find a Professor with just as long of a Reputation as her and can outright say she's full of shite." Feel free to try. He or she must have a similar level of achievement and track record as Prof Bond and must be from a university with a similar reputation as the University of Edinburgh (ranked at around 30th in the world). "At that point its who you want to believe." Facts nor history are "who you want to believe". "Its not Uncommon for Academia to be full of People Contradicting each other." Absolutely! That is pretty much the whole point of academia. But over the decades and centuries, academic paradigms form in. There's nothing controversial in anything Prof Bond says here.
All the derogatory comments here are to be expected. Jesus and Christianity are a soft target. Imagine if they tried to do a similar Q&A about the Prophet you-know-who. My god.
A soft target? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA yes, the most brutal and controlling, and largest religious denomination in the world is totally “a soft target”. Give me a break. Yall are always oppressing while claiming to be oppressed. This is why the world is quickly becoming done with Christianity.
@@SassyUnicorn86Christians never turn the other cheek. Considering your deity told you to enslave other nations and wipe them out to the last infant “dash the infants against the rocks” - and to be JOYOUS while yall do so….no. Turning the other cheek is not what Christians are about.
Of course they are expected, you've had thousands of years to prove your religion is true and you have nothing, either get some evidence or stop whining when people call you out on your lies. As for a Muslim Q&A, Muslims are not like you. Muslims do not go online, talk shit about their prophet, and then wonder why people don't like them.
No, he didn't exist. It was a tale from Egypt that the christians rewrote. Horus was born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, walked on water, delivered a 'sermon on the mount', performed mircles, was executed beside two thieves, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Wrong completely. The Horus Manure has long been debunked to the point anyone repeating might as well say they also believe in UFOs. For one, here was how Horus was actually Conceived. "After Osiris' death, Isis gathered up the pieces of his body and brought him back to life long enough to CONCEIVE Horus. According to some versions of the myth, Isis used her magical powers to resurrect Osiris and then COPULATED with him, resulting in the conception of Horus. In other versions, Isis used a magical spell to create a PHALLUS for Osiris, allowing her to conceive Horus without actual physical contact. This mythological detail highlights the importance of Isis' magical powers and her role as a powerful female deity." Horus wasn't even born from a Virgin. Isis CLEARLY had to knock up Osiris Reanimated Corpse to guve birth to Horus.
Because we're dealing with sources that were written decades after Jesus died. Ancient history is based mostly on what's most probable. There are very few facts that we are absolutely certain about, especially about individual people. This is just how ancient history is done, and anyone who claims they know that many things 2000 years ago 100% happened isn't to be trusted.
Philo of Alexandria (who was the 1st Century equivalent of History Hit) wrote extensively about the Jewish peoples. He would have been a contemporary of Jesus. What did he write about him? Nothing. Now that might be explained away. However, if Jesus was drawing huge crowds and as much of a thorn in the authorities side as the bible says - why did he not write about him? For the record, I believe there probably was some obscure end times preacher by the name of Yeshua Ben Yosef (or something similar) roaming around Judea with a small group of followers - but most of his life was the product of later embellishment and exaggeration.
Exactly he was probably a nut leading a small cult preaching against the romans and was executed like all the other people who were doing similar things at the time as the romans saw this as trying to incite rebellion among the Jewish population. His later followers were successful in crafting his story to blame the Jews so they could then be accepted as a religion in the Roman Empire.
There are many other sources from Roman and Judaic writers with no interest in Christianity and they nevertheless reported the life of Jesus. There's no doubt Jesus is a historical figure in the sense that he was a preacher in Judea, he died on the cross, and this happened during Tiberius's reign. @Tsumami__ I'm not even a Christian, you genius
What kills you when crucified? Is it that you bleed to death? Or do they also put a nail through your forehead, and it was simply decided not to depict that in the Christian iconography?
My understanding is it was usually suffocation. The longer you're up there the harder it is to support your own weight, eventually you hang by your arms and it becomes hard to breathe. You could also die from dehydration. I found it interesting the two images she showed had the nails through his hands, when they should be through his wrists. You can't hang by just the skin between your fingers, the nails would eventually rip through. In Jesus' case if he was only up there a few hours, he probably died from artistic interpretation.
I'm not sure regarding the nail to the forehead, but presuming that the crucification is in the form of the traditional cross. 1.) Hypovolemic shock: Having your radial arteries severed alongside other blood vessels will lead to a gradual loss in blood over time; whether or not it will be sufficient to lead to hypovolemic shock, where the heart no longer is able to adequately perfuse blood throughout your arteries and return them via veins, is unclear and likely varies based on the nail size as well as the location and trauma to the surrounding tissues. What is clear is that your entire body weight resting upon the nail will further damage tissue and help prevent clotting which would further blood loss. 2.) Exposure: being stripped naked, and slowly drained of blood or losing a significant volume of blood, as well as likely being malnourished and exposed to a.) nights and b.) winds would rapidly deplete your body of energy, and all of these factors would decrease the ability of your body to properly thermoregulate. You become hypothermic and your core body temperature gradually decreases until your heart has dysfunctions that leads to death, or you fail to oxygenate your tissues properly and functionally die of suffocation. 3.) Malnutrition and starvation and/or infection & septic shock. Jesus is presumed to have been stabbed by a spear, this injury is categorically what would have killed him, based on what I have been exposed to. Romans typically left the crucified alive, up there, for days on end until the elements take them. So considering the physical trauma, as well as the cyclic heating leading to dehydration and baking during the days and increasing fluid loss (thus worsening hypovolemia) and freezing at nights, leading to greater energy expenditures, your head once again gives out. If you happen to get an infection during this time period, you are severely immunocompromised and it could lead to septic shock, but I would bet money the other issues kill you first.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 76 | คู่เอก "ผึ้งหลวง vs สมิงดำ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9SBshmGQOIM/mqdefault.jpg)
I am a total non Christian but I found this video fascinating. Thank you!
As opposed to a partial-non-Christian?
same
That whole "of course he was crucified was would they make that up" should have u on the fence. This person is clearly biased.
I mean by that account if we asked her "Should we kill gay men" (Leviticus 20:13) she would say "Of course, why would they make that up?"
If we asked "If a woman is not betrothed and get raped; should her rapist go to jail or just marry the victim?" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) she would say "Of course the rape victim has no say and needs to marry her rapist, I mean... why would they make that up?"
Her logic and reasoning is faulty, circular and highly biased. This is clearly an member of the christian faith, trying to insert some historical worth and therefore some validity to a non-sensical belief system that is full of contradictions and immoral practices.
Pls be more critical
@@northernsoul13Ummm
Same
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
Philosophical comedy gold..
People talking about someone decades after the fact doesn't mean someone existed.. Paul had a so called hallucination .
The Life of Brian is probably more accurate in the actual rise of the cult of Jesus and Christianity than any believer would ever want to contemplate. Comedy gold indeed. It's one of the funniest movies ever made.
@@jdjones4825 Ya but it was 2000 years ago so that's really our evidence that any ancient historical figures existed some historian wrote is down some time, Jesus probably existed his 12 apostles went in pairs in 6 different directions some to India some to Rome some to Ethiopia 40 years after jesus's death the first gosepsl were written by the apostles followers writing down what they'd said so it's not just this one guy paul it's 12, also it would be a bit bizare if they made the whole thing up as a joke said it to people who didn't take kindly to it got martyred and then 2000 years later it's the worlds leading religion
@@smoutube1197we don't know if the deciples scriptures are legitimate and even if they are I think once the paul edits occurred the Christian branch of Judaism was eternally "bastardised" from its original free flowing sentiments..
It would have been nice if the hundreds of other men the Romans had killed because they claimed to be the 'Messiah' prior to the Jesus death had been examined.
I've read elsewhere that it's at least 200.
That's a lot of very naughty boys.
Jesus repeatedly killing other kids was not an answer I was expecting from this 💀
And describing it as "very naughty" is one of the most English things i've ever heard :).
@@anonymes2884 Murdering little kids is slightly rude.
@@anonymes2884 "very poor form"
I'm not going to lie, I had to replay that part about 3 to 4 times before it sunk in.
Well the Abrahamic God was no stranger to killing children by the first century and Christians argue Jesus was God 🤷♀️ but also that gospel was never canon and considered heresy (not sure what professionals think about it though, it's always difficult to find what they think in relation to Christianity)
I was born into a Christian family, but no longer consider myself a member of the faith. I find the historiography of Christianity so fascinating. Always a pleasure to hear Professor Bond speak on the subject.
Really? She's so chock full of utter gibberish I can't cope and I've watch 11seconds and had to stop
There is no one in history better attested: pliny the younger, Suetonius, Josephus, plus about 20 others independently attest Jesus. We know the sermons preached in corinth. from 17 years after the crucifixion. She's just a nut job with a badge mate
man i love this womans voice, i could listen to her talk for hours and hours its so soothing
Same here. I would marry her if given the chance.
She would make a great nanny.
I find this very refreshing it's very hard to find historical Jesus without the stains of religion
when i saw this i thought the same thing.. but I didn't feel like she was pushing facts without evidence. She was trying to find evidence without just saying yes he performed miracles.
She certainly gave him the benefit of doubt
Loving the rational and well-informed debate in the comments where everyone apparently possesses more historical knowledge about biblical times than an actual professor at the University of Edinburgh... Well done you. You really "got" whoever it was you think you're getting.
Don’t disagree with you, but I do wonder if you’re aware that people possessing more knowledge than world experts is the very basis of YT :-)
You do know that there are only so many books on this subject and anybody can read them and have an opinion about them just as valid as this professor. Most are on the internet.
@@paulryan5150 OK, but being a professor is way above the level of "reading all the books". She spends her life attending conferences, reading academic papers from all over the world, doing original research in museums, writing papers, which are then peer reviewed. She'll be up-to-date on all the latest ideas and will be expected to have an informed opinion on them and she'll also be asked to review them. She's probably able to read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. She's been doing this for decades. She might even have to do some teaching!
If you're not an academic, you don't have access to this world.
@@FleurPillager Helen has a lot of content on TH-cam and has written a lot of books
no one doubts her knowledge - her independence of thought not so much. She is essentially a theologian and biblical scholar of fan fiction of the 1st AD. You know the saying about when your paycheck depends on fitting the facts to match your foregone conclusion ...
Just wanted to remind all the smug armchair experts in the comments here that most historians think Jesus was real. If he was the son of God is another matter entirely. The evidence for Jesus is better than most historical figures who's existence no one denies.
As an atheist, I despair at the levels some people go to to assert he didn't exist. It is pure wishful thinking.
If you use Occam's razor, it is far far more likely that a ten-a-penny preacher was crucified and then his supporters spun the story in a way that resonated with people, than the idea that a group of people purposely invented a logically inconsistent story based around a guy being crucified. It literally makes no sense.
I'd like to remind you that history is not a political numbers game, and everything not written AT THE TIME is not valid evidence of anything, but gossip and spin.
I deny his existence
😊 pop pop
@@87tinman then he will deny you. Repent brother, do you really think you’re perfect?
Notably, there are scant documents that date back centuries that support the claims made about the majority of historical figures from that era. She is not claiming that he is divinely born, as Alexander the Great was supposedly born to Zeus; rather, she is stating that the evidence for his existence is consistent with accepted historical accounts.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I publicly declare that you’re a divine being.
Now we need exceptionally good evidence to be sure you’re a real person.
There are no historical accounts. A couple of guys a generation or two afterwards who claim to be his inheritors of authority are hardly unbiased sources
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I completely disagree. There is enough in the New Testament that are not fanciful stories of miracles etc to believe these are actual people.
As mentioned, the best evidence is the crucifixion in that it would make no sense to make up a religion on that basis.
There is plenty of other very good circumstantial reasons to mean the default is that he was real. Whether we know a single thing about him other than that he was crucified is another matter entirely.
Sadly Atheist with Argue over anything that claims Christ Was actually a Real Person. Making her fair game.
@maxdecimus13 the crucifixion is a very important part of Christianity. Jesus suffering and dying for our sins, supposedly.
Judging from the comments, I feel that most people would be surprised by how little evidence we have about historical figures and their life and works at that time period. Even with major historical figures like Alexander The Great. Most of what we know about him come from Arrian who lived hundreds of year after Alexanders death.
With Alexander the Great one can theorize his presence by the archeological data of torched cities and the physical evidence of the bodies left from his battles. Physical evidence for his existence? None at this time.
And that's the thing isn't it. So many of our most trusted sources for figures of antiquity are generations removed from said figures, or they're outright unreliable.
Take Suetonius for example, who gave us various accounts of notable Roman figures. He had access to archives that many scholars did not and thus can be viewed as a trusted source, but he also loved the more salacious rumours of those figures and thus can at times be viewed as the TMZ of antiquity.
We only have 3 sources for the life of Socrates: Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle.
Im a bit late, but people like alexander had huge impact on the world. Just think about someone conquering the greatest empire on earth, creates one of the most populated citys on earth (alexandria), becomes pharao and ... Those are things that have also high archeological evidence, from people like jesus dont't have.
Alexander the great was way older than jesus like 400 hundreds years early.... we got a lot of things about people who lived in Jesus time, like Julius Ceasar, Octavian or even the China's rulers were getting register and people write about them at that time, etc. But it is true that if you were not a ruler or someone with power yeah... you wouldn't into history, with a little bit of luck and if you work hard maybe your name would have survive but not your life, your thoughts or something. And jesus wasnt any of that so very impressive that he made that kind of impact at the time.
"He was very unpopular with a group of people in Jerusalem..." - The diplomat's answer.
that shows she is not fit for the job.
@@MrCopyrat It's lucky you are not in charge of a university!
Bingo!
Cue two millenia of irrational antisemitism
@@sallyside8855 It's a university, most a propagandist sites now.
It is insane how much things in the world and history have happened based on people's faith in someone of whom we know so little about
It’s very sad really 🤦🏽♀️
the fact that we know so little probably helps because then people can project any traits or stories onto him.
👏👏👏
As a Christian this is so fascinating to listen to. The newer shows and movies are trying to portray Jesus in a real-world manner and style, so it’s great to hear a historian give a knowledgeable and lifelike?? Piecing together of what like during Jesus might have been like.
This was an absolute delight, thank you professor Bond!
She's a member of the church of Scotland....
@@joshuataylor3550 ...and?
It's worth pointing out that most historical figures from that period are based on very few sources dating centuries after their death. She's not saying he's the son of God, like how Alexander the great was considered the son of Zeus, just that the evidence that he existed stands up to standard historical scrutiny
He existed just as much as the other thousands of guys named jesus existed. Throw in a bunch of writers and storytellers (with various agendas) and you've got entertaining fairy tales at the very least.
@@LP-jn4tw Throw in a few messianic expectations and you have a rock and roll band.
No, actually, they're not. But for some strange reason, we give Jesus a pass on actual evidence.
@@steveofthewildnorth7493no, actually, we don’t. Fortunately most people aren’t ideologically obsessed atheists who want to contort history to suit their own purposes.
@@steveofthewildnorth7493 Xtian apologists do but critical biblical scholars who do scholarship based on evidence do think a traveling apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jesus was around at the time and had a following.
It obviously does not mean Christian teachings themselves are true, just that he was probably a guy who existed. Look up "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?" by Dan McClellan on TH-cam.
all of the apostles were martyred and died horribly, yet under this extreme torture, none ever recanted what they experienced with Jesus
...except the one who, very famously, did...3 times!
John 18:15-27
No torture needed either - just 3 questions.
It's weird how Christians don't even know the basic "facts" about their religion.
@@themoon9442you clearly don’t know the context. Peter never denied Jesus’ existence, he denied knowing him after he was identified as one of the apostles. However he regretted and repented right after and ended up being crucified for his faith by Emperor Nero
@@kedda4515 Oh dear...
1. "you clearly don’t know the context."
I grew up in a society where Christianity was the state religion. That means Bible readings at the beginning of every school day, lessons in Christianity and Catechism every week, Sunday "school" and church every week, congregational practice every Thursday, choir practice, prayers before meals, religious shows for hours on TV, the whole liturgical dirge, not just Christmas and Easter, but Ascension Day, Candlemas, Lent, Palm Sunday, Harvest Festival, Advent, Epiphany, ...
You can rest assured that I know the context.
2. "Peter never denied Jesus’ existence, he denied knowing him after he was identified as one of the apostles."
...which is EXACTLY what @ChrisSmith-lo2kp said he didn't do.
His OP says, "none ever recanted what they experienced with Jesus". It doesn't say "none ever denied Jesus’ existence", does it? You just made that up.
What is the difference between none "ever recanted what they experienced with Jesus" and none "denied knowing him after he was identified as one of the apostles"? You are agreeing with me (and the Gospel of St John).
3. "However he regretted and repented right after and ended up being crucified for his faith by Emperor Nero"
Yes. So now you admit that even St Peter agreed that one of the apostles recanted what they experienced with Jesus. It's good to have him on board too.
As I said before, "It's weird how Christians don't even know the basic 'facts' about their religion." When confronted with such a "fact", they have to resort to making up a strawman argument and misrepresenting each other.
@@themoon9442 But that is Saint Peter you are talking about, the one even more famous for founding the largest church in the world. Ne denied knowing him to get out of a tight spot when he was recognised and then deeply regretted it after. The moral from it was that forgiveness was open to him and he didn't lose the love of Jesus just because in that moment he lost love for Jesus. He later was crucified upside down and was true to his faith to the end, never repeating that same mistake.
@@genericcommenter1267 So you also agree that one of the apostles "recanted [yes, I know - weird verb] what they experienced with Jesus".
Good to have you on board too!
Just to remind you, this is the original post...
"all of the apostles were martyred and died horribly, yet under this extreme torture, none ever recanted what they experienced with Jesus"
This is just not true at all.
As I said...
One of the apostles very famously did recant what they experienced with Jesus...3 times!
John 18:15-27
No torture needed either - just 3 questions.
It's weird how Christians don't even know the basic "facts" about their religion and, when the facts are pointed out to them, they go into long explanations of how this somehow didn't count!
Its interesting because the New Testament states Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. However, that crime was punishable by stoning. The crime of crucifixion was reserved for inciting rebellion or insurrection against the Roman state.
The Jews were not allowed to administer capital punishment under the Romans. The gospels say that the Jews incited Pilate and the Romans to crucify him by charging him rebellion against Rome.
Blasphemy was the temple authorities acussation. But he was presented as a rebell against Rome to Pilatos. That Is why pilatos first really doesnt care, and the reason jesus Is mocked as a false king of the jews. A messiah Is both a religious and polítical figure.
Another way you can read this from the eyes of Apostle Paul is that although you are right that he shouldn’t have been hanged on a tree for blasphemy, God purposefully made it so so he can rightfully redeem us from the curse of the law as it is written in Galatians 3:13 -
”Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus”
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says “a hanged man is cursed by God”.
It's a story
You forgot about the thieves crucified near Jesus.
OMG!! I love "biblical time machine"! Didnt realize who it was until I heard her voice - fully recommend the podcast, even as an agnostic. Great fun time
I really want to hear more about the texts that didn’t make it into the New Testament that sounds really interesting
They're known as the Apocrypha - basically a series of ecumenical councils: Ephesus, Chalcedon and most famously the council of Nicea, gradually edited what was deemed acceptable to be in the New Testament. A lot of the gospels and traditions that don't make it are because they don't fit into the Nicene Creed interpretation of Jesus, and also, on a political level, they weren't compatible with State Worship of the Emperor which was mandatory in Rome. Some of the more well known apocrypha include the Gospel of Thomas, of Mary, of James, Philip, Judas, Peter, Nicodemus, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Hebrews, the Nazarenes, and so on. A lot of these remained in Christian denominations that were outside the control of the Roman Empire, such as the Nestorians and Assyrian Churches of the middle East, or the Coptic Christians of Egypt and Ethiopia. This also explains why Islam has many traditions about the infancy of Jesus which we don't have in the new testament, as the Quran incorporates much of the Middle Eastern, non-Roman apocrypha.
@@ChrisRowe they are often also a bit crazy.
It's often treated as a bit of a conspiracy, but it's not hard to see why early Christians rejected a gospel that claimed Jesus was the snake in the garden of Eden.
So if Jesus had lice, would they be granted eternal life? Since they drank his blood
Underrated comment
they had to eat of the flesh to get to the blood, so they were the first to have the full eucharistic experience
And would they be the lice of god?
Hahahaha but salvation is a human construct. Can unintelligent beings obtain secondary eternal life?
@khayegarais9643 this reminds me of a passage from chuang-tzu:
Chuang Tzu and Hui Tzu were crossing Hao river by the dam. Chuang said: "See how free the fishes leap and dart: that is their happiness." Hui replied: "Since you are not a fish, how do you know what makes fishes happy?" Chuang said: "Since you are not I, how can you possibly know that I do not know what makes fishes happy?" Hui argued: "If I, not being you, cannot know what you know, it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know what they know."
Chuang said: "Wait a minute! Let us get back to the original question. What you asked me was 'How do you know what makes fishes happy?' From the terms of your question, you evidently know that I know what makes fishes happy. I know the joy of fishes in the river through my own joy, as I go walking along the same river."
perhaps we and lice are not so different as to preclude them from attaining holiness
Basically the answer to every question: In the bible it says so but we have no other evidence of it.
09:55
There might not be any evidence to confirm this as such, but I imagine that if a deep dive was done to see how often the Bible or other records show how often he closed a door when leaving a room, we could make a fair assumption as to yes or no.
I have not been a believer since I was 12, but growing up I can safely recall never hearing tell of him closing a door. That would lead me to assume that yes, he was in fact born in a barn had he existed. Which, I'm happy to accept he was a real person.
As an atheist, I'll accept that Jesus as a person was real. Was he the song of god, or performed miracles? Doubtful. Someone existing vs someone doing all the things they said were done are two different things
I’m a Christian and i don’t normally comment on religious stuff online because it usually goes nowhere, but hey I’m feeling spontaneous.
I believe that he’s the son of God, but also agree about your statement, that miracle claim doesn’t equal miracle truth. They’re totally two different things. If you read the gospels, the most stark evidence Jesus uses for his own deity is the prophecies of himself in the Hebrew Bible. That, and how his teaching impacts my life, are two of the biggest things that spark my faith.
The miracles he does mean to reinforce the invisible reality of redemption, and that forgiveness is much more important than the physical healing. None of this you can ever 100% prove, of course. I walk by faith, not by sight.
Thanks!
@jonahrobo5969 I'm not interested in trying to deconvert you, and doubt I could anyway, but have you ever actually looked at many of those prophecies?
Some of them are erroneous translations, and some of them have nothing to do with predicting a future Messiah. They are the predictive example of quote mining. Then you have the bizarre instance where there is a prophecy that references something that doesn't exist in the NT.
This I agree with.
The point is there were many competing cults with very similar figures, themes, stories, dates; being aware of this says much more about what needs to be understood. Speaking exclusively about whether Jesus alone was real while denying the rest is in fact presenting and protecting the Christian point of view alone.
Your point is a good one (this whole presentation is bull sh**).
Absolutely mental seeing Prof bond on TH-cam when I last saw her in the late 90s when a mate shared a flat with her friend 😂
Was she wild back then?
Was she assuming crap then too?
Was she guessing at the life story of fictional characters then too?
@@FleurPillager I mean, Dido's released several albums so she definitely exists.
Loved this one. I am a former protestant member that never really believed, but was always fascinated by Jesus. Hearing this kind of perspective is so refreshing and interesting.
It is quite common theology and has been for more than 200 years now.
@andreascj73 what is the point of your comment? I go online and make a positive comment, you don't know anything about me, and your instinct is to condescendly come on to point out something I already know? Just keep your mouth shut buddy, and move on.
@@mike9512 Nothing condescending in my comment. But this is common theological knowledge. It would have been the same if you were surprised by some common medical knowledge and thought it refreshing being a former football coach or something, and you were told by a doctor that it is common knowledge.
Instinct? There is no instinct in replying to a comment, mate.
@@andreascj73 Ask a mate to reread your response. It does legit look like your instinct was to condescend. Your follow-up makes it look even more so.
@@BadgerUKvideo I actually don't care how it appears tbh. Common knowledge among theologians is common knowledge among theologians.
15:40 Yes, Pilate was 100% real. The Israel Museum in Jerusalem contains the Pilate Stone, which contains a partially intact inscription mentioning Pilate by name. The stone is consistent with what we know of Pilate's life from textual sources, so yes, we know Pilate definitely existed.
20:30 Jesus was also a major figure in the (now nearly-extinct) former major world religion of Manichaeism.
Though I didn't know about the Pilate ring, I was surprised that the professor made no mention of the Pilate Stone, the single most famous archaeological attestation of the historicity of Pilate.
@@barrymoore4470 Well yes, but ofc still ther eis debate, as for example the stone wekans in itself tacitus acount of him. And as a source alone is never good, its betetr when backed up by others, which in this case would be tacitus.
But as the stone makes clear the Pilate there is not a proconsul, as tacitus says, bot a legatus from the proconsul of Syria, this shows either: tacitus was wrong (and therefor can not back up the stone, which then is only backed up by the christan-sources itself) or the stone is wrong/means another Pilatus, as tacitus means.
This was an interesting video! She's very well spoken, thanks for this!
The romans kept meticulous records on many things, even the price of a bushel of wheat. Interesting that they never even mentioned Jesus.
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals ( c. 116 CE), book 15, chapter 44. The relevant passage reads: "called Christians by the populace.
@@TheMoonSeesMe Yes, In 116 CE. FYI Jesus, if he existed at all, wasn't called Jesus, and he certainly wasn't considered a Christian.
Jesus also loved cats. Specifically Persian cats. He had 3 of them. He named them Mary and Joe after his parents, and lastly Curly. Curly was heavier than the other two cats.
😂😂
You were trying humour correct?
I understand the argument that Jesus was not the first Christian, but I am unsure about the assertion that Christianity did not emerge as a separate religion from Judaism until much later, even after Paul. I thought that Paul argued that gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism to be accepted into the Kingdom of God. My understanding is that Paul argued with Peter and James (Jesus' brother) that gentiles did not need to adhere to the Jewish laws about food (and presumably circumcision, but I am less sure about this). If that is the case, then it seems to me that Paul was founding a separate religion from Judaism even if he didn't call it Christianity. Have I misunderstood Paul's writings? I would very much appreciate Prof Bond's clarification. Thank you.
There were many different forms of Christianity at that time. 'Heresy:Jesus Christ and the other Sons of God'by Catherine Nixey is a very good book on the subject.
None of that makes any sense, because Christianity as we understand it, did not exist before the council of nicea 325 CE and the first evidence of AD dating ocurrs in the 6th century.
I can tell you that from a Roman perspective, Christians were seen as a Jewish sect until the reign of Vespasian in 70 AD. This indicates that most Christians at the time looked and acted like other Jews.
I suppose the question is when does something become a separate religion rather than a branch of a religion or some members of a religion that have slightly different views than the mainstream
This happens all the time in Christianity and islam and judaism but we dont count them as separate religions
... Jesus was the first Christian, He was the first to be Baptised by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes you gotta consult the Catholic Church, 😅
This was extremely captivating, thank you, Professor Bond.
Great video, thank you! I will definitely look for your podcast.
I was of the understanding that actual togas were more of a formal garment, rather than the everyday garment of Romans.
They certainly were by the early Empire.
For God's sake, Jesus didn't kill other children.
Josephus also mentions Jesus and his brother James, not just Pilate. You'd think that would be important context. Hopefully not edited out.
Josephus was born decades after Jesus alleged death, Jesus didn't appear in Josephus's first history ,but only in his second history which overlapped dates, Josephus's 2nd history followed the Roman propaganda of the time which Josephus was personally beholden to.
Josephus is a later Greek source widely debunked in actual scholarship. It's generally the bible bashers who tout Josephus about, usually misquoting him and giving him more credit than deserved
@@infozencentre No, Josephus was a Jewish historian that apologists hate since he exposes lots of blunders in Luke-Acts as he had access to actual Roman records since he was close with the Flavians.
@@infozencentre Jospehus was Jewish not Greek and he wasn't debunked. He is widely regarded as non-Christian source on Jesus, though it is agreed his fragment was subject to some inetroplation.
And the dinner in the painting was the Passover Seder!
When you were describing Jesus from the infancy gospel I kept thinking of the Disney Hercules movie 😂
Listening to this woman speak on the history of it all is a lot more interesting than the book.... a LOT more interesting❤
This was so interesting and pleasant to listen to!
So many comments on this video exude a high degree of ignorance from the commenters. Jesus is as much a historical character as Spartacus or Alexander the Great. Just because we do not have archaeological evidence of his body (like we don’t have the remains of Alexander or Spartacus) doesn’t mean he didn’t exist. It’s not just the Biblical accounts that tell of him, but also historians and writers that (while not contemporary to Jesus) were contemporary to the times of the early Christian communities-historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. His historical existence can be detached from the religious/supernatural claims of the faithful.
Lol ,🤣as long as your convinced
🏅 gold star for mental gymnastics
yeah, no lulz
Also, don’t forget the evidence in Pompeii. Also, saying their is no evidence of Jesus is like saying theirs no evidence that Caesar lived. We believe Caesar lived because we see the evidence in the record as a result of his life and it’s implications. I love how people want to apply a different standard to Jesus then they do any other historical figures.
Lots of Reddit atheists in these comments
As someone who is very involved in the study of cults, it seems as though he was a kind of cult leader of his time with dedicated followers who believed he had healing powers.
As has been said, the difference between a cult and a religion is two thousand years.
@@barrymoore4470 love this!
@@barrymoore4470 I'm a little bit skeptical. nowadays we normally use the word cult to denote a religious movement that is isolating, polarizing, manipulating. members are not free to come and leave as they want, they have to cut ties to their families, they need to give money to the leader or perform unpaid labour etc.
@@gordonlekfors2708 Jesus enjoined his disciples and would-be followers to ignore their family ties and obligations (let the dead bury the dead being one example) in committing to their path with him. This would be consistent with modern notions of cult.
It did not take two thousand years for Christianity to become the official state religion of the Roman Empire. ;-)
There are two Gospels that start by listing Joseph's genealogy, and although they differ in parts, both affirm Joseph was a direct descent, by the male line, to the old Kings of the Jews, like David and Solomon.
Joseph had a credible claim to the crown, and that would give his son, Jesus, a legitimate claim to the crown.
The fact that he was traveling the country and gathering a following made him a credible threat to Rome. The inscription on the cross was not mockery.
I went to the cave where Jesus was born and it was so beautiful, all the walls where painted with the story of the nativity and it was just bewildering. I done a whole Christian tour of Israel on the days leading up to Palm Sunday and the whole experience was just mind-blowing. It was one of the greatest few days of my life and I would recommend others to do a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. It’s a real shame what’s happening over there right now. There was a time when the three Abrahamic religions lived together in Jerusalem in harmony, wouldn’t it be great to just have peace over there now ...
This is very interesting.
Buddha and Muhammad next please.
20:25 Jesus is also a prophet in Manichaeism. This religion also venerates the Buddha and the Zoroaster, and at one time it was the dominant religion in Persia, and it has at various points been practiced from Spain to China. Today it's on the verge of extinction after centuries of persecution and is only practiced in a few villages of China.
I have the feeling she missed the question at 13:20 "Did Herod try to kill Jesus?" the question probably was referring to Herod the Great's attempts to kill the newborn Jesus, i.e. the slaughter of the innocents. Is there historical evidence for that?
No. At the time Jesus was thought to have been born, Herod wasn’t only not a ruler, he wasn’t in the area at all, it’s pure fiction
And how do you know this? You speak like you were there. You weren't
@@nankosa82 ah yeah sorry, forgot we can only talk about things we have first person perspective of. What a stupid comment
@@nankosa82 neither were Matthew, mark, Luke or John, but I bet you believe their accounts. Believe it or not, high ranking officials such as, yknow, kings, had their movements well documented
‘Was Jesus a naughty boy?’
“Wellll… he did kill a few kids. And he was rude to his teachers too!”
Lady, what!? I need more on this.
I want to know more about this too wtf? This is new to me lol
@@rodzalez3549 Google "Infancy Gospel of Thomas"
One small addition: Jesus is present in a couple of religions, not just Christianity and Islam.
He was one of the 4 prophets in manichaeism, which was a major world religion in the 3rd-7th centuries.
In the druze faith, he is one of the 7 prophets.
In the Bahá'i faith, he is a manifestation of God.
Some Hindis consider him an avatar (an incarnation of a god) or sadhu (a holy person).
Some Buddhists, including the current Dalai Lama, also consider him a budhisatva.
I enjoy the crossovers in many different religions that you could say sound like they could be the same person/deity, with just some slight differences that would matter to the people of that area at the time.
Correct me if I am wrong but Pilate had Jesus crucified because the Saducces and Pharisees along with Caiaphas wanted him killed and Jews weren't allowed to do that so they sent Jesus to Pilate to have him tried and crucified. So it wasn't just the Romans responsible for this act but also the Jewish authorities who felt threatened by Jesus's teachings.
That's how the gospels tell it, but they're a biased source. The other sources we have just don't give details about it - Josephus just says there was a preacher called Jesus who got executed. (and had a big following that didn't dissolve after his death.) The general idea that the politically powerful folks in the area didn't want him starting a revolt does make sense, though.
They could have him put to death for blasphemy, ie stoned to death, but as he seemingly avoided that, then they used first Herods and then Pilates fear of insurrection to have him dealt with under civil law rather than religous law. Judea and the whole of the Levant was a powder keg, and Pilate would not want to be seen as the person that allowed the whole thing to go up, so if he deemed Jesus to be an instigator of Jewish Independence ie a messiah, then he would want to suppress that very quickly.....so false witnesses were probably used to convince Pilate that Jesus preached insurrection and independence from Rome......nothing about him being King or his religeous views.
There is no contemporary evidence to suport any of this.
@jeffmartin5419 Josephus was a Jewish historian, and the mainstream Jews considered Jesus a heretic. To claim that the gospels are biased as historical documents, but that counterclaims written by someone with an opposing ideology are not is intellectually dishonest.
@wiretamer5710 the gospels and writings of Paul are contemporary historical documents. Whether or not you believe they are divinely inspired is irrelevant. The fact is they are part of the historical record, and they were written within living memory of the events described.
Am not religious but I dare say he existed, but the only thing he seems to be recorded in is the bible!
And I don't really care .
So he was the ancient version of Dennis the menance lol
Which one? There are two
ACTS 11:26, probably from the 80s, has followers of The Way first being called "Christians" at Antioch. It may have been intended to have a negative connotation.
This was a really interesting one.
I really enjoyed this post. Thanks Prof Bond & History Hits :) My question would have been -(probably impossible to answer) - was there any proof of a resurrection :)
Ironic that a carpenter ends up nailed to a piece of wood. Imagine him hanging there thinking "I could have done a much better job for half the price"
That's why he carried it. Didn't want a stranger messing up the wood even more
You’re soooo lovely ! Thank you 🙏
Jesus is the most successful con artist, cult leader, or crazy person. I can decide which is the most accurate.
I am always amazed at how little American Fundamentalist Christians know about their Christian history. "One of these Jesus films" - brilliant.
the expert is a very sweet lady
While he spoke Aramaic, he probably knew enough Hebrew to participate in reading the Torah, and probably read it aloud
Who?
Do you realize how many times the word "probably" figured into the conclusions you've drawn?
@@pirththee Do you realise it's impossible to talk about anybody without probabilities, let alone somebody 2000 years in the past?
@@andrasszabo1570 Here's a phrase that is helpful in situations like you're describing. "I don't know" It's a quaint little phrase that trumps all probabilities and suppositions..
@@pirththeewhat? Are you saying it’s NOT probably true that Mohammed split the moon in half, Joseph Smith found gold plates and Olifat causes mischief in Micronesia? Well, as the first MusMormOliest, I can say that those things ABSOLUTELY, 100% happened*.
*probably
It's refreshing to see comments about Jesus as a person and not a load of nonsense about god and miracles.
Pliny the Younger, a Roman Gov. talks about him having believers sing to him"as to God".
Pliny was some time after Jesus died, and what he refers to is the Christians that he was dealing with whilst Governer of Bithynia in 110 AD, and what you refer to is his letter to Trajan and how he was to deal with the Christian community from a judical point of biew. He never actually uses the name Jesus, but rather Christ ( and not identified as a person, and the term was "as to 'a' god" of which the Romans had many and allowed the belief of a huge amount of others. So Pliny can be used regarding the early christian movements spread but nothing about Jesus as a person or him ever existing in reality
Always love listening to Helen Bond! If anyone cares to listen to her podcast you with find that there are many scholars over many disciplines that have studied the historicity of the Torah and the Bible and speak knowledgeably on how the books were assembled and what parts are historically supported. Her position that Jesus was a real man referenced not only by the Bible but by other historians of the time period does not mean that she swallows everything in the Bible as historically accurate. It is a text that is telling a story in order to support its teachings, and knowing that, it can be analyzed to separate the historical from the embellished. Did Jesus’s life happen and inspire religion? The answer is clearly YES. Was he the miracle working son of God? That’s up to you and your beliefs. Her beliefs are withheld here as she is speaking about history, not religion.
Its important point that no person who wrote the Bible, ever anticipated that anyone from the general public would be capable of reading it, let alone express an opinion about it.
That's absolutely FALSE. For example, Paul's epistles addressed to particular church communities were meant to be read, shared, throughout the church communities they were sent to.
@@soccerchamp0511 ahhh… how many people were ABLE to read those letters?
@@FleurPillager WHat do you mean? Literacy was an elite skill in the ancient world... it made you the equivilant of human computer.
For those among you who don't believe the whole resurrection thing, what do you think happened?
1. Dude escaped the cross somehow so he didn't actually die to begin with.
2. The people who saw him after his death were having some kind of intense dream/vision. Perhaps a trauma response.
3. It's a conspiracy. The people who saw him just wanted to be famous so they wrote a book.
1. No. Everybody dies. Maybe he escaped the cross (as Muslims usually believe). Maybe he died on the cross. Maybe he died shortly afterwards. Maybe he survived a few weeks. Maybe he went to India. Maybe he never existed.
2. We don't know. Neither do you. There are so many possibilities. Return after death was common among Mid-Eastern deities at the time. It still is in West Africa. Ask the people who saw Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson after their deaths. It's not an uncommon phenomenon, even today. Hindus and Buddhists believe that everyone comes back after death. It's not an unusual belief.
3. Maybe. Some of the people who wrote the books which ended up in the Bible seemed to want to leave their names on them. Others didn't.
I really don’t understand why this video didn’t perform as well as most of the others, I really enjoyed it!
Me too. But some people nowadays are seem to be very bitter at Christianity to the point they love to deny historicity of Jesus and keep mocking every expert who doesn't agree with them and seem to be trigger at any mention of Jesus. (And there is of course the other group - overly-religious ones who reject any critical academic discourse.) It's so sad how fanatical are both sides.
Because Christians do not want any kind of possible fact to interfere with their idea of what they are told to believe. It is one of the major reasons I stopped being a Christian. The church does not want you to seek knowledge or ask questions.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518I would imagine it was almost certainly religious people voting the video down, not non-religious people.
There are many Christians who find it very offensive to pull apart and scrutinise their religion in this matter-of-fact manner, and the video equates Jesus’ healing abilities to those of other holy men at the time which is also taboo to lots of Christians.
Christian scholars who view the subject matter purely from an academic standpoint without necessarily being believers always have comments sections full of accusations of blasphemy and other negative feedback when they make these kinds of videos online.
@@final_animal I am not talkig about voting, I am talking about comments. When this video aired, during first few hours it was flooded in comments by non-religious people who disimssed historical Jesus as fairy tale and were asking "when there will be vidoe about Santa Claus and Tooth Witch?"
Love Helen And her podcast (Biblical Time machine) with Dave
I am pagan but I love hearing about early Christianity and this time period.
You're pagan? So were the virtuous Romans, who accepted Jesus as one among many Gods, the Greeks and Romans knowing the following...
An Empirical Proof of God's Existence:
(1) The word 'true' entails a cognitive presence;*
(2) The laws of the universe were true before they were discovered by corporeal life; therefore...
(3) The laws of the universe were true before corporeal life existed, identifying the existence of a non-corporeal entity that knew the laws were true.
The syllogism proves that an intelligent entity knew the laws of the universe were true before corporeal life existed, but is this non-corporeal entity God? Since the laws of the universe were always known to be true by this non-corporeal entity without the necessity of thinking about the laws of the universe, we therefore identify the infinitely knowledgeable entity with no need for thinking, which entity is known as God.
--------------------------
* Only mind can divine a truth.
@@brian78045 Do you say this to every Pagan you meet? It must get tiring.
Maybe find something less pompous and patronizing to do?
@@alanparsons4646 a non-reply reply from a Satanist on the thread!
@@brian78045 ?
I'm surprised to see that you didn't tackle the question as to whether he resurrected. That would seem to be one of the most important ones to be answered.
The way she says the word “questions” is wild
She's just saying it in the proper english way my dear chap
19:58 “the gospel writers of the early Christian’s want to imagine that Jesus…”. Could’ve answered all the questions with that single phrase.
Yes, you could but it would be rather imprecise.
Not that phrase exactly; leave off the apostrophe in “Christians.”
You could have stopped with "Early Christians want to imagine", because that says it all.
@@pirththeeyeah, that says it all! Ancient writers wrote things!!! Why so any more!?!?!
@@Jd-808 "Early Christians want to imagine" as the phrase used not "wrote things". What's with you trying to rewrite the sentence now?
She doesn't really know much about Judaism and her historiography reflects this. For example, he would dress like a Jew rather than a Roman. Of course they would influence each other but to suggest that Jews would be slavishly following Roman fashions is silly.
She speculates. She voiced her opinion, you can have different, but you also speculate. I think subject is complex.
You know, I think I figured out why so many people are upset about this video. I think it's because they put a scholar to the task, who, in her research, does not enter the topic with the presupposition that Jesus was, in fact, the incarnation of a deity, and that you, as the researcher, have your eternal salvation on the line specifically when it comes to the belief in said Jesus as their lord and savior, which you know, might just maybe, in some maybe small maybe you know, possibly totally irrelevant way bias the researcher so horrendously that you could never have them honestly present this information.
How dare you bring common sense into this!
Homie Richard Dawkins admits Jesus was a real person who lived.
@@aleclandry4408 Homie that is completely irrelevant to my comment
I think that these comments perceived it as upseting due to the commonly managed discussions in internet about Jesus and Christianity,that are mostly directed into debunking the Christianity and Jesus.Mostly declaring in sophisticated manner or bias approach to Bible with their preassumptions that are unfortunately commonly met with,that "Bible says what it says,but we don't believe it or we very much doubt it outloud or indirectly."But that is not well-directed assumption to go with,when analyzing Bible without truly looking in it's meanings,historical evidence and dating or retoric that it uses,simply declaring,that it contradicts itself or it is written with well-prepared retoric to convince others,that it us true and the only true.In scientific sphere it is truly intelectually dishonest to go with that sort of agenda into that source, that requires more reflection than simply being biased atheist,sceptic or agnostic looking at it only having debunking or mitologylizing effort in mind.
I’m sorry, but many scholars who started out secular have come to the realization of Jesus’ deity only AFTER doing their work via secular research. The problem with your insinuation is that it leaves out the fact that those who seek to do anything via secular means go in with a presupposition of their own: that Jesus was not the Christ. Every single human being on this planet has a worldview and that worldview absolutely and unequivocally informs the way “experts” go about their research. What matters is the evidence, which we have via eye witness accounts that, to date, actual textual critics cannot deny were eye witness accounts from the first century. And given the result of Impact Events, it is very plausible that details could be remembered as if they were yesterday, whether written down a few years or decades later. That’s how trauma victims can recall every detail of something that happened to them, or how an elderly soldier who has forgotten much can clearly describe a mass tragedy like Pearl Harbor, etc.
Wow this is very impressive . A history professor who is not afraid to tell the truth about Jesus instead of bowing to the masses and going with the “accepted “ truth
There are many atheist biblical scholars. Perhaps most are non-believers.
I would have a lot more truck with this if most of the "evidence" for Jesus' activities didn't consist of what is written in the bible. Talk about a circular argument.
He probably existed. We have no records of teenage Jesus. Was he in the Far East learning about Buddhism during that time? Highly doubtful that he was some type of messiah sent by the magic sky fairy, but he was probably a real person. Think modern-day Joel Olsteen without the money and facelifts.
Did he even exist? What about the "silent historians". Historians who lived in the 20s, 30s, and 40s AD and they never mentioned him.
A person who performed amazing miracles - walked on water, calmed the storm, resurrected the dead, and changed one liquid into another (water into wine).
Nobody wrote about him when he was alive, nobody kidnapped him.
Scholars believe there was a Jewish man named Jesus who traveled around in that time period and had apocalyptic teachings but obviously those miracles are not something that can be proven.
That IS the whole point: nothing was written down when he lived. Despite his “miracles”…
@@TheStijg
I find this very bizarre. A person with powerful, god-like skills and abilities was never mentioned. Nobody abducted him to use his skills.
He could resurrect the dead. How incredible is that? He could change one substance into another. That's incredible.
The Roman Empire was very bureaucratic, they wrote about everything worth mentioning and a person with magical abilities was certainly worth noting.
The gospels were written by people who had never seen Jesus in person. Never. They weren't even close to him.
@@oldi184 You didn't listen her - there were many figures of miracle performers. Jesus wasn't so special to outsiders. It was his followers that made mark on history.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518
I think Jesus did not exist.
She often said that there is no good, hard evidence that Jesus Christ was real.
And why the New Testament was written in Greek? Why not in Aramaic?
like it very much, thank you
Was Jesus real? Probably.
Was he the resurrected son of a god while also being that god who sacrificed himself to himself to save everyone from what he’d do to them if they didn’t worship him? Probably not
😂😂😂
'probably'? for anyone not swayed by religious fantasy but secured in scientific facts there is no doubt that once someone died (especially after suffering the fatal torture of being crucified) there is no coming back to life, certainly no resurrection. the whole concept is utter fabrication. resurrection?!? pah, this Paul fellow ruined his whole reputation with this claim alone.
Yeah that's how the trinity works
Pretty lightweight "analysis". Even a critical historicist knows that the Gospels are not historical documents. The only question is how much fiction is there. Just taking the Gospels as the Gospel truth means this is not a critical look at the subject.
There is a difference between stating that the gospels and the writings of Paul are divinely inspired, and the idea that they are historical documents.
We don't believe that Achilles was an almost immortal, half god, but we do know that their was a city that was destroyed that was written about as Troy.
We don't believe that Alexander the Great was the son of Zues, but we do belive he actually existed.
Doubting the miracles of a text does not invalidate its historicity.
@@TheLastAssaultman0351 I would not cite Troy as your historicity defense. There exist elements of Homer's story in a Sanskrit story/myth. The theory being that the story goes back to the people speaking proto-Indo-European. It predates Troy. Yeah, there maybe a few current events maybe inspired the person (or groups of people) to re-write the existing tale using local people and locations but seeing how they started with existing material to re-write the story to their own ends, historicity is not something you should be taking from the Gospels. I take skepticism that I feel is quite warranted. There are even phrases in Homer that are definitely pre-bronze age collapse and some that are post iron age. To casually call Homer historical is to plaster over a world of fictionalization. Euhemerization is the actual technical word used.
She is engaging in what I believe is a common liberal Christian apologetic tactic. Bart Erhman definitely uses it. That is to come out and say you can't take everything in the bible literally (which is demonstrably true) and then, after admitting one or two details are provably wrong, take everything else as true. (I think they do that as a dig at fundamentalists. She is tacitly saying: don't be a fundy) She mentions the nativity story. There are two irreconcilable versions of the story. There are many details that are provably wrong. Then after all that, people like Bart Erhman say what you can "prove" is that Jesus was real and that he was from Nazareth because the story element of moving him from Nazareth to Bethlehem was awkward and that the only reason to include it was if it was true. Which is a real stretch. You go to the effort of showing at least 90% is fiction of a small section of the story and then just say the rest is true because you can't disprove everything with the same certainty. Yes, proving a negative is hard. That's why the big-name anti-historicist scholar merely gives odds for Jesus' existence. He admits up front there is no good method for knowing with certainty. And since I'm not a scholar, I just stick with skepticism. As I mentioned, there are elements borrowed from existing stories. The problem with mimesis criticism is that you can't prove all of it. It really is a matter of interpretation. However, some borrowings are more obvious than others. An example is in the story of Jesus turning water into wine there is an almost word for word borrowing from The Bacchae by Euripides. No, that doesn't prove it is all fiction, but that should be a reason to be skeptical. Religious texts are often made-up bullshit. We usually aren't as close to them as we are to Joseph Smith, so the evidence of the fraud has been erased by history. Like I said, the video was very superficial. What I gave as a superficial summary of some of the critical analysis you can find nowadays. This video was fluff. It didn't even go into the depth I did with this comment.
@johnobrien6415 wow so an actual scholar of the field knows nothing compared to a commentator in TH-cam comments.
People aren't trying to prove Jesus was real, this is very much the default position. Non-believers like myself, are interested in how much of it is true because there is so much that is obviously untrue.
The thing you seem to misunderstand about the approach of scholars such as Ehrman, is that they are also establishing a likelihood. All of the existing sources claim Jesus came from Nazareth. This was a problem for early Christians to the point they invented a whole story to try and get him to Bethlehem. The obvious question follows: if you're inventing a Messiah who needs to be from Bethlehem, why not just say he is from Bethlehem? This is the problem Mythicists have all over. Why is it not just far more likely that a historical person had legendary aspects added to him, than a story was simply made up? The latter becomes far less likely when you remove the desire for Jesus not to be real.
As for Richard Carrier and his Baynesian odds for Jesus' existence, I don't think this has ever convinced anybody, just like theists using the same method to prove 100% that God is real. It all depends on the assumptions of the person putting in the data.
My mom used to ask me all the time if I was born in a barn?
Mine too. Which is odd right ? Because if anyone should know it's surely her.
So the followers of JC waited decades to a hundred years after his death to write an account? How is this a historical record? It’s more like a historian writing about the fables of Atlantis. While Jesus probably lived, the mythology written about him is just that. I was hoping for an objective review of these questions.
Good luck finding objectivity on this subject.
He's mentioned in the Pauline Epistles about 20 yrs after his death. The scholarly consensus is that a traveling apocalyptic preacher named Jesus existed and had a following but obviously the religious stuff and miracle claims are unprovable.
@@preciousmourning8310 Can one cite those that comprise ones scholarly consensus?.
@@pirththee Look up the critical biblical scholar Dan McClellan here on TH-cam, he has a PhD in the Bible and the cognitive science of religion. Especially relevant is his video: "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?".
@@preciousmourning8310 That's one source I believe you talked about a consensus which implies more than one..
That was so interesting, thank you!
these extra canonical gospels, particularly the "Gospel" of Thomas were never "in" the Bible or referred to on any of the Biblical lists by Anthanasius or any of the early synods or later ones, any one. Thomas and these others were not actually Gospels but are spuriously referred to as such. Thomas is a Gnostic writing which is an early religion and became a Christian heresy. Elaine Pagels is the professor who so famously made something of the "gospel" not even heard of until 1945.
"Why did the Romans want to kill him?" "This is sort of at the end of his life" - ya don't say...
Why is it that in Spanish culture, people use the first name "Jesús" but we don't do that in the rest of Europe?
Well, there's Joshua in English, Jussi in Finnish, Giosue in Italian, Iosua in Romanian, aaand so on. Not Jesus exactly, but then according to the video, Jesus wasn't named Jesus either 😅
It's because in Spain in the 1500s there arose the last name ''De Jesus'' (which means ''Of Jesus'' in Spanish) This last name became very popular in Spain and so people in Spain got used to seeing ''Jesus'' in people's names. And so by the 1700s some people just started naming boys ''Jesus'' and it became a common name in Spain and other Spanish speaking places.
@@AleksiJoensuu Giosue, Iosua, Jussi, all just mean ''Josepth''. not Jesus. Are you saying that ''Jose'' in Spanish means Jesus too?
@@robiking011 Did you watch this video? If not, see 0:38 - 0:52.
@@AleksiJoensuu What does that have to do with anything? She never says that Giosue, Iosua, Jussi all mean Jesus.
There is a number of books written in the bible from people who walked, talked and experienced the power of Jesus, I would urge you to read the gospels it will answer all of the relevant questions and better than this video which is sadly someone's opinion nearly 2000 years later. Jesus is the savour of the world who rose again after crucifixion being the perfect sacrifice for our sin so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life after earthly death. I pray that you realise this and all the other amazing things the bible reveals including the Holy Spirit also.
Hi Tim
None of the gospels were written by people who walked, talked and experienced Jesus. They were written decades after Jesus's death and the names which we now give them (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were added later still.
Helen Bond is a Professor of Christian Origins and New Testament. That means that she has spent her entire adult life studying the origin of the documents that we now call the Bible.
It is you who is expressing sadly expressing someone's opinion nearly 2,000 years later.
@@alanparsons4646 No. Academia nowadays is infected with ideologues. There is barerly any credibility coming from their months. You can easily find a Professor with just as long of a Reputation as her and can outright say she's full of shite. At that point its who you want to believe.
Its not Uncommon for Academia to be full of People Contradicting each other.
Amen. After seeing how the Secular world is going insane. Dawkins thought he and his Ilk could create a rational world if they got rid of religion. Instead he is very scared of this new world.
He has Woke Atheist who outright deny reality. Woke Atheist whob
hate him for simply being a White Male and Islam who the Woke Atheist invited in.
Everytime he hears the Call for Ramadan in England he hears the Puss in Boots death Whistle.
Dawkins now calls himself a "Cultural Christian" while celebrating the Decline of Faith in Britain as Islam us rising. Clown🤡
@@silverhawkscape2677 "No. Academia nowadays is infected with ideologues. There is barerly any credibility coming from their months."
? I genuinely don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.
"You can easily find a Professor with just as long of a Reputation as her and can outright say she's full of shite."
Feel free to try. He or she must have a similar level of achievement and track record as Prof Bond and must be from a university with a similar reputation as the University of Edinburgh (ranked at around 30th in the world).
"At that point its who you want to believe."
Facts nor history are "who you want to believe".
"Its not Uncommon for Academia to be full of People Contradicting each other."
Absolutely! That is pretty much the whole point of academia. But over the decades and centuries, academic paradigms form in. There's nothing controversial in anything Prof Bond says here.
@@alanparsons4646 That's exactly the Problem. She's a good sheep. Nothing that Academia itself doesn't want her to say.
So bottom line was Jesus had lice and stunk.
Q: "what languages did Jesus speak?"
A: "Murican"
All the derogatory comments here are to be expected. Jesus and Christianity are a soft target. Imagine if they tried to do a similar Q&A about the Prophet you-know-who. My god.
Well we turn the other cheek and that's a quality I admire
A soft target? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
yes, the most brutal and controlling, and largest religious denomination in the world is totally “a soft target”. Give me a break. Yall are always oppressing while claiming to be oppressed. This is why the world is quickly becoming done with Christianity.
@@SassyUnicorn86Christians never turn the other cheek. Considering your deity told you to enslave other nations and wipe them out to the last infant “dash the infants against the rocks” - and to be JOYOUS while yall do so….no. Turning the other cheek is not what Christians are about.
Of course they are expected, you've had thousands of years to prove your religion is true and you have nothing, either get some evidence or stop whining when people call you out on your lies. As for a Muslim Q&A, Muslims are not like you. Muslims do not go online, talk shit about their prophet, and then wonder why people don't like them.
Muhammad? there is more proof that he was real than there is of Jesus being a real person. Either way, God isn't real.
What’s with the blurring out on the picture?
I think calling somebody naughty because he killed his classmates is quite the understatement.
How popular? Not as popular as the Beatles!
Not really. No one cares about beatles
@@king_halcyon More people care about the Beatles than Jesus luv. At least the Beatles were real.
No, he didn't exist. It was a tale from Egypt that the christians rewrote. Horus was born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, walked on water, delivered a 'sermon on the mount', performed mircles, was executed beside two thieves, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Wrong completely. The Horus Manure has long been debunked to the point anyone repeating might as well say they also believe in UFOs.
For one, here was how Horus was actually Conceived.
"After Osiris' death, Isis gathered up the pieces of his body and brought him back to life long enough to CONCEIVE Horus. According to some versions of the myth, Isis used her magical powers to resurrect Osiris and then COPULATED with him, resulting in the conception of Horus.
In other versions, Isis used a magical spell to create a PHALLUS for Osiris, allowing her to conceive Horus without actual physical contact. This mythological detail highlights the importance of Isis' magical powers and her role as a powerful female deity."
Horus wasn't even born from a Virgin. Isis CLEARLY had to knock up Osiris Reanimated Corpse to guve birth to Horus.
So many crackheads here
“It may well be”, “it’s possible”. OK, thanks for the clear answers
Because we're dealing with sources that were written decades after Jesus died. Ancient history is based mostly on what's most probable. There are very few facts that we are absolutely certain about, especially about individual people. This is just how ancient history is done, and anyone who claims they know that many things 2000 years ago 100% happened isn't to be trusted.
That is normal when you don’t have certainty about something
About 24 hours left to watch "Digging Up the Bible #18: Even More Archaeological Evidence for Jesus and His Life"
(one of the CrossExamined videos)
Look up Titus Kennedy. This is what he does, he is a biblical historian
Philo of Alexandria (who was the 1st Century equivalent of History Hit) wrote extensively about the Jewish peoples. He would have been a contemporary of Jesus. What did he write about him? Nothing. Now that might be explained away. However, if Jesus was drawing huge crowds and as much of a thorn in the authorities side as the bible says - why did he not write about him? For the record, I believe there probably was some obscure end times preacher by the name of Yeshua Ben Yosef (or something similar) roaming around Judea with a small group of followers - but most of his life was the product of later embellishment and exaggeration.
Exactly he was probably a nut leading a small cult preaching against the romans and was executed like all the other people who were doing similar things at the time as the romans saw this as trying to incite rebellion among the Jewish population. His later followers were successful in crafting his story to blame the Jews so they could then be accepted as a religion in the Roman Empire.
Philo never wrote about John the Baptist. the High Priests or Roman Governors of Judea other than Pontius Pilate so that's not much of an argument.
There are many other sources from Roman and Judaic writers with no interest in Christianity and they nevertheless reported the life of Jesus. There's no doubt Jesus is a historical figure in the sense that he was a preacher in Judea, he died on the cross, and this happened during Tiberius's reign.
@Tsumami__
I'm not even a Christian, you genius
Probably many street preachers with that name were roaming around with small bands of followers lol
@@antoniousai1989No. your belief does not make him a historical figure. And religious apologists are not historians.
I am not a Christian but i find this interesting 😅
Nothing that this person says is actual, truthful, plausible.
Historical.....
Show me the bones Sasquatch
Get a hobby.
Learn to paint.
Houses
@@drew8305What are you on about?
Same here! His impact on the world is enormous, up there with the likes of Caesar and Alexander the Great.
What kills you when crucified? Is it that you bleed to death? Or do they also put a nail through your forehead, and it was simply decided not to depict that in the Christian iconography?
My understanding is it was usually suffocation.
The longer you're up there the harder it is to support your own weight, eventually you hang by your arms and it becomes hard to breathe. You could also die from dehydration.
I found it interesting the two images she showed had the nails through his hands, when they should be through his wrists. You can't hang by just the skin between your fingers, the nails would eventually rip through.
In Jesus' case if he was only up there a few hours, he probably died from artistic interpretation.
I'm not sure regarding the nail to the forehead, but presuming that the crucification is in the form of the traditional cross.
1.) Hypovolemic shock: Having your radial arteries severed alongside other blood vessels will lead to a gradual loss in blood over time; whether or not it will be sufficient to lead to hypovolemic shock, where the heart no longer is able to adequately perfuse blood throughout your arteries and return them via veins, is unclear and likely varies based on the nail size as well as the location and trauma to the surrounding tissues. What is clear is that your entire body weight resting upon the nail will further damage tissue and help prevent clotting which would further blood loss.
2.) Exposure: being stripped naked, and slowly drained of blood or losing a significant volume of blood, as well as likely being malnourished and exposed to a.) nights and b.) winds would rapidly deplete your body of energy, and all of these factors would decrease the ability of your body to properly thermoregulate. You become hypothermic and your core body temperature gradually decreases until your heart has dysfunctions that leads to death, or you fail to oxygenate your tissues properly and functionally die of suffocation.
3.) Malnutrition and starvation and/or infection & septic shock. Jesus is presumed to have been stabbed by a spear, this injury is categorically what would have killed him, based on what I have been exposed to. Romans typically left the crucified alive, up there, for days on end until the elements take them. So considering the physical trauma, as well as the cyclic heating leading to dehydration and baking during the days and increasing fluid loss (thus worsening hypovolemia) and freezing at nights, leading to greater energy expenditures, your head once again gives out. If you happen to get an infection during this time period, you are severely immunocompromised and it could lead to septic shock, but I would bet money the other issues kill you first.