For me, the strongest evidence is that there are so many different sources that talk about him and his followers, not just the gospels, but also other writers like Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and the Talmud. They all agree on some basic facts, like that Jesus lived in Palestine, taught and healed people, had disciples, and was killed by the Romans. I think that’s more convincing than the mythicists, who seem to have unrealistic expectations and double standards for historical proof.
The twelve men plus Saint Paul went the rest of their lives preaching what they heard and saw, they gained nothing from it and suffered horribly for it. 12 of the 13 being killed over it. Men dont throw away their lives so easily and for nothing.
There is no evidence for any existance, Jesus is a composite satirical character made up of several jewish messianic leaders from the first century. There is ample proof the Gospels are Roman engineered propaganda.
I am not sure if Jesus existed or not. I lean toward that he did. But your logic for saying so is not correct. By your logic the characters in the Book of Mormon are also real. When characters are created to peddle religion the standards are not the same methodology.
The Roman texts simply repeat the gospels or the belief of the christians in the gospels. The fact gospels are not direct Christian fabrications does not mean there is an actual Jesus. Those Roman texts would need to be independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, providing new details, actual testimonies. But zero contemporary Roman historian ever mentioned Jesus. Paul, the only contemporary to have written about Jesus, only ever met people who had seen Jesus only in visions and revelations.
Josephus, a Jewish Pharisee, the antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter 3 “63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
@@turturkeykey3403 Actually, that quote was suspected to be a Christian fabrication. Here's the real quote: "At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"
This is what the Historian Tacitus said about Jesus: "Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! I view the two as intricately connected since the adoption of double standards is indicative of disdain for history as we have actually received it and a slap in the face of the real men and women who lived, died and sacrificed to make our world possible.
as hitchens says " why go all those lengths and lie about roman census to have Jesus born in Bethleham but be from Nazareth if it was a complete fiction ? Why couldn't they invent a rabbi who was born in Nazareth? This lie shows us that Jesus did exist but he didn't met the criteria to be a Nazarene." This is Christopher Hitchens not me. Its his words, not mine.
The problem with Hitchens argument is that he's only talking about 2 gospels. The other two gospels are just as highly venerated and didn't see the importance of placing Jesus' birth in Bethlehem at all.
@@seanstott6168 Rising from the dead, and making all of your friends happy, and having accomplished the most grueling quest in the universe, with a future of reigning as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, forever and ever, not so happy for Jesus? Really?
I'm somewhere between agnostic, atheist, and anti-religion as a whole, and even I am humble enough to know history points to Jesus existing, just as it does for Muhammad and Siddhartha Gautama. What I am surprised by is how *sassy* this video got at the end. Hahaha.
I was blowing off a little steam there at the end as I found myself increasingly frustrated that I needed to establish something so basic. I'm still shocked people work themselves into knots to deny something that has literally know theological or metaphysical implications whatsoever
It’s important to remember that the Gospels - themselves - are sources written by people who knew the Disciples of Jesus or were written by the Disciples themselves. The Pauline letters are known to have been written by Paul the Apostle, lending further credence to the authenticity of the Bible. After that point, the entire matter concerning miracles and Jesus’s resurrection are up to personal interpretation. From a historian’s perspective, we cannot definitively say that they did or did not happen as all we have to go by are the accounts of the Apostles. However, outside of this, we can say - for certain - that Jesus was real and that Jesus was highly influential in swaying thousands of Jews towards him.
First sentence is 100% false. The Gospels were written anonymously, decades after the events they describe, by authors trained in Greek rhetoric (i.e. not by Galilean fishermen). They do not read at all like independent eyewitness reports, as the synoptics rely on one another for large numbers of verbatim passages, and recount events at which no apostles were present (trial before Pilate, for example). Gospel of John is even later. Also note that we have no first or second century manuscripts of any of the Gospels, other than small fragments, so we have no way of knowing that the texts we have weren't altered. The names that the Gospels appear under today were applied later, and we have no good evidence that they are accurate. Paul says explicitly that he did not base any of his ideas on conversations with any witnesses to Jesus, and in fact disparages Peter as a "nobody." Instead, he tells us all of his information about Jesus came to him in visions.(Galatians 1:12) Paul is therefore not an eyewitness either. The fact that the Gospels were originally written anonymously is well known among non-apologist biblical scholars.
@@jamesheartney9546 it sounds like your standard for an eyewitness account is someone journaling either as it happens or shortly after. 3 decades is nothing. My 9 year old son passed away last year. In 30 years, I could still give you a solid account of his life, and especially the day he passed. A guy rises from the dead and you discredit the gospels because of a 30 year gap. They fact that everything in them was not witnessed by the author doesnt discredit the eyewitnessing As my son lived, I heard stories about things he did while I wasnt there. I would include them in any biography I wrote about him, does this mean I was not an eyewitness to his life?
@@jamesheartney9546>The Gospels were written anonymously there is no evidence of this. all existing manuscripts have the authors listed afaik >The names that the Gospels appear under today were applied later, and we have no good evidence that they are accurate. how do we know they were applied later when there are no existing manuscripts from the 1st or 2nd century? that's completely baseless conjecture
@tribunateSPQR I have. That doesn't change my statement. Are you aware of any _evidentiary facts_ that demonstrate the historicity of this Jesus? Yes or no.
i don't think i've ever met someone in real life who argues jesus didn't exist. i didn't realize it was that controversial. i don't believe he had holy powers, but sure he was probably a dude.
Yeah, it's almost entirely a small group of very online people that have no understanding of the historical method and are primarily motived by a strong distaste for the modern religion of Christianity more than anything else. Basically angry athiest teenagers. As said in the video, acknowledging the historiocity of Jesus doesn't involve any faith or religion or even thinking that there was anything supernatural about him whatsoever. But they are SO consumed by anger at religion that even admitted that small amount is a step too far. Their desire is to humiliate the religion and anyone who follows it as following a myth, and they don't care whatsoever about what historians think.
@@Tinil0 Sorry, I but it is exactly the opposite, and this video is a perfect example. It is full of fallacies, presents NO argument outside the gospels, and basically exits stage left. He could do a nice job, but chose the cowardly way. threw a hissy fit.
I did not know Jesus mythosist where such a big problem over in America until i check the comments. Sorry to hear you guys have deal with that. Can't think of a single scholar that holds this position. Not even the overly critical Bart Ehrman.
It's a position advocated entirely on the internet - ask any of them to name a real scholar who holds this view and they'll name a 50 year old book by someone with qualifications in a completely different field
He was a being created by God that had no consciousness. No man can have the power of God. So basically a shell to carry out plans. God doesn’t really care about religion or worship, it was just a manner to subdue early barbarians. All will be explained in the upcoming rapture on God’s 14th billionth birthday. Y’all should drink up, God is banning alcohol after the rapture.
Ironically, Richard Carrier - who employs the historical method - is such a scholar who thinks Jesus is a myth. But even he thinks there's a 33% chance there was a historical Jesus. His point is: Jesus could be a figure like Robin Hood, General Ludd or John Frum: various real people combined with myth (based on Jewish "angelology", Jesus as the high priest in heaven). Carrier does away with Josephus by pointing out what is mentioned in this video: that the record has been doctored by later Christians. Carrier hopes that slowly this position will become the scholarly consensus - similar how Moses was revised from historical person to myth. Whether he's right... only time will tell. Note: this video would be much more credible if it would not start with framing the mythicist position as inconsistent, untrustworthy and having a hidden agenda.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 No. Carrier simply concludes that Jesus was a COMPLETE myth SOLELY because people (Greeks) years after his life attached commonly known mythological "tropes" to Jesus in order to embellish his life and make it relatable to the Hellenic world of the Mediterranean. Carrier points to the stories of other completely mythological characters that are VERY similar to the stories attributed to Jesus and thus declares that Jesus MUST have been entirely a myth as well. Jesus cannot be a myth while being 33% an historical figure. He is either a bonified historical figure or a complete myth. Can't have both!
Actually we have better evidence for the existence of Pilate, including a stela with his name and mentions by contemporary historians. We also have better evidence for, say, Spartacus.
We genuinely didn't expect it to be controversial - we're presenting mainstream scholarship on the issue and a conclusion that is shared by a wide range of experts, from atheists to practicing Christians. The fact that there is still so much misinformation here and references to faulty sources shows why the video was necessary though
@@tribunateSPQR okay that's bull LOL you literally are here saying you're trying to be as harsh as possible. You can't say just because we lack definite information that people who doubt are denying reality. Is the denial unlikely? sure. but is it possible? also yes. sure mythacists aren't acting in good faith, but neither are you here. So i can't consider your argument without a bias inclination
I have come to the conclusion that Socrates was a group of philosophers that Plato idolized and came to be known as the mythical figure Socrates. Many philosophers were forced to drink poison at the time and had various myths and teachings about them. Franz Meusebach wrote extensively on this.
The burden of proof for the existence of someone named Jesus in Judea who led a religious movement is pretty low. Jesus was a common name, and there were plenty of religious movements in Judea. It's also not very hard to believe that the Romans would have crucified such a person.
7:37 "The position espoused by conservative Christians today that He was the divine Son of God." Not sure why 'conservative' was added here. Regardless of the particular theological/political orientation, this is fundamental Christian dogma that is proclaimed by the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Even non-Trinitarian traditions have various explanations of how Jesus is both God and the Son in some more metaphorical sense.
You're right and I regret the language used here - I was attempting to draw a distinction between the two extremes of biblical accuracy and in so doing it looked like I was attributing this view of Jesus to only conservative Christians. I understand that it is the dominant view and is shared by all orthodox traditions within Christianity.
This video starts off by claiming the public doesn't understand the methods of professional historians. But we do. I personally know a couple of professional historians - university academics. They have a strong inclination to tell a good story and get facts wrong and omit facts contrary to their story. Look at TH-camr Mark Felton - a university history teacher specialisiing in World War 2. He gets a lot of things wrong, especially when he talks about the war in the pacific. But he tells a good story.
I fully believe that you are familiar with the methods and methodology of academic historians as are most of the viewers of this video - but we're a small subset of the population that are passionate about history and though I wish this commitment was more broadly shared I don't think the general public has a solid grasp on what constitutes a valid historical approach. Even many of the comments on this video reject the overwhelming consensus of scholarship on this issue which shows that there is a tendency to reject historical evidence and expertise if it aligns with pre-existing beliefs.
While I find the Jesus mythicist position to be absurd, given the historical data, and by employing the historical method, this video title and some rhetoric within the video is not accurate. Historians do not "know" Jesus existed. Because unless the content creators are using "know" in a colloquial way and not as an absolute certainty, historians can be absolutely certain about historical figures from antiquity.
Very poorly researched if he believes no academics assert mythicism and have published peer reviewed books on it - and he’s condescending towards them.
😂 we have more & better evidence of Pontius Pilate than Jesus …are u just lying or ignorant? Pilate's Life As a historical figure, we have evidence of contemporary literature, coins minted in his name, and an inscription from the base of what may have included his statue from the city of Caesarea. Our literary sources for Pilate include the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria
So i used to have a rather agnostic view of historical jesus but something that fueled it was that when pointing towards textual evidence i got a vague "josephus" & the tacitus quote which, idk if its the translation or something but it came off As "nero did things to christians; the christians believe X" which read as proof of christians" Getting the actual citations changes the perspective radically
The Odyssey and Iliad were written down centuries after the events they described and were considered aprocryphal until Schliemann found Troy in th 19th century.
@@druidriley3163 Of course not. But they provide evidence for the Trojan War and the possible existence of some of the humans mentioned in the two sagas. Bear in mind that if Jesus existed, it does not prove that he was a god.
@@nickd4310 Well sure, historians have not doubted some of the characters in the bible mentioned were real -- Herod, Pilate. Roman emperor - but the main character?
@@druidriley3163 The title of the video is "How do we know Jesus existed," not whether God exists. An historian can conclude on the balance of probabilities that an historical Jesus existed without believing in gods. Alternatively, a religious person may believe Jesus was a God without any evidence for his existence.
@@nickd4310 Many people believe Jesus=God. Keep reading the comments and you'll see. *historian can conclude on the balance of probabilities that an historical Jesus existed without believing in gods* I'd rather a historian use evidence, not probabilities on the existence of a figure from antiquity.
Did you not finish the sentence where the word "embarassment" was mentiond before posting this? Embarassment was mentioned not as proof that "they would have only included it if it REALLY happened", but as a heuristic tool for considering if it is worth dismissing a historical anecdote entirely or to analyze it further.
There may have been a rabbi-Jesus, but he and bible-Jesus have nothing but a name in common. Bible-Jesus is totally mythological. There was no virgin birth of Jesus. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus (though there is evidence that others were crucified). There is no extra-biblical evidence for any miracle performed by Jesus. There was no resurrection of Jesus. Rabbi-Jesus, on the other hand, may have had some followers, but he was no Messiah. Josephus wasn't even born when the crucifixion supposedly took place, and his writing about Jesus came decades later and is thought by experts to have been forged. Furthermore, even if Josephus' writings about Jesus were not forged, they do not and cannot attest to his divinity which is a fabrication.
You're responding to claims we didn't make - we don't argue here that the historical method backs any miraculous claims (all we can know is that Christians believed these claims). The similarities between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith have been debated for centuries and likely will for centuries more. As for evidence of his crucifixion, this is one of the things that we can absolutely know for certain about him as it is relayed in both Christian sources (which are historically valid for these limited purposes) and non-Christian works like those of Tacitus and Josephus. Certain aspects of Josephus are of course later interpolations but scholars have identified a historical core as legitimate to the original work. The fact that he was writing decades later is irrelevant because as mentioned we also accept works like Plutarch as primary sources though his biographies were written centuries after some of his subjects.
@@tribunateSPQR No, I'm not. I'm making an assertion, not a response to a claim. There was no bible-Jesus. That Jesus did not exist. There may have been a rabbi-Jesus. That is not a response to any claim made in your video. There was no crucifixion of Jesus. That claim was made by Christians and may have been repeated by historians as a Christian doctrine. Biblical sources are NOT historically accurate for these limited purposes. Biblical sources occasionally coincide with historical sources but are not historical themselves. The books of the bible are religious in nature, not historical in nature. They are not interchangeable except in the case of the history of religion. Therefore, there may be some historical accounts that mention the claims or dogma of a religious group without affirming the events actually took place. That is the case with the crucifixion. No historian affirmed that Jesus was crucified but that Christians say he was.
The author of the Gospel According to Saint John definitely witnessed the crucifixion of someone beaten & scourged as is described as happening to Christ. The proof is his description of the centurion thrusting his lance into Christ’s RIGHT side and seeing WATER AND BLOOD flow out. Something only an eyewitness could know, medical science tells us. Stabbing crucified victims was not standard practice. Doctors say that watery fluid would have built up & surrounded the heart in the pericardium sac in someone receiving all the wounds Christ did. No one could make up that medical fact, sorry.
You keep claiming there is historical evidence, yet you fail to show it. Why not quote sources? Give us, as they say, "book, chapter and verse" of historical books that contain authentic references of Jesus.
The crucifixion of Jesus is an example of an event that meets the criterion of embarrassment. This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and advocates of the criterion claim this method of execution is therefore the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment#Examples I am an atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural, but I believe the Jesus story is very loosely based on a real person.
Josephus, the antiquities of the Jews, book 18 chapter 3 “63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Thank you for being driven by fact and rationality. Massive respect for calling out the political activists presenting themselves as "scientifically" driven people.
Duuuude, I really liked this one. I think I was holding onto some early-aughts nu-atheism edgelord baggage... "It is a war on the discipline of history itself" indeed.
could you please add more content to your actual content? I would have much preferred if of the 20 minutes which compose this video more than 5 were dedicated to the actual historicity of Jesus rather than explaining over and over the same approach adopted by historians with much petulance
I hold the same disdain for mythicists for their "war on history" I also hold that same disdain for those who believe in the miracles as well. Both Myth and Miracles are ahistorical. Great Video btw!!!!!!
Sorry but starting from a naturalist presupposition is just that presupposition one should be open for both supernatural and natural explanations to events. That does not mean blind faith but if the best explanation is a super natural it's most likely true. Otherwise one assumes that the material world is the only reality that exist and that is just bad metaphysics.
@@wizardmadnes8035are you open to Hinduism or Islam or Shintoism? The issue with presupposing the supernatural is that there are hundreds of modern and thousands of ancient interpretations of the supernatural. There is only one nature, and it is something that we can observe and test everyday, regardless where we are are what we believe and the results of the tests are the same. The "best explanation" is "most likely true" is terrible metaphysics because there is no metric for what is the "best explanation." If you asked a Roman why earthquakes happen he would say that it is because of Neptune duh, and that was the "best explanation" at the time, does that therefore mean it is true? Of course not. Through a naturalistic understanding of the world we stopped blaming gods or God for earthquakes and now understand tectonic plates. What I presuppose is that evidence should come before belief. We only have evidence for the natural. So I can see why religious folk believe I and others "presuppose" a natural world only. There are those which this video rightly calls out who are ardently against any supernatural beliefs to the point where they deny reality which is a serious issue.
Religion or belief's are a part oh human civilization. It's an anser to questions no one can answer and a way to keep or help keep people on the right path in life. It gives people hope and helps them cope with death... it does a lot of good things for the needy in most cases. So is Jesus real? I wouldn't know but if it makes people deal better with thier lives to believe he is than i feel that is absolutely fine. During hard times or desperate times in my life i have preyed for strength or guidance and it helped me feel better and helped me to deal with the situations.
Gospels not historical but mythology, remember there are 30+ gospels written by UNKNOWN authors 600 miles away, nobody even knows when they were written Paul doesn’t even mention a historical Jesus only spiritual Jesus made by god
I think that everything past acknowledging his existence and death by crucifixion is up for debate and there is plenty of evidence to support a wide range of interpretations but if someone can't even admit to those tow well established facts then they aren't really able to contribute to the conversation.
...I'm sorry, did you bring up the criterion of embarrassment? That's an infamous fundie canard. We are not in a position to know in the modern day what people of that time would be embarrassed by. What's more, sometimes people deliberately include embarrassing details into their embellished stories, specifically to humanize themselves and appear more trustworthy. Trying to say "this detail is embarrassing to the author, therefore they would have only included it if it REALLY happened" is basically nonsensical from a historical analysis standpoint.
I would have to disagree here - the criterion of embarrassment is used by a broad range of scholars (for example it was one of the chief criterions endorsed by the Jesus Seminar). It is also be used by believing Christian scholars (some of whom may misuse it) to shore up the authenticity of certain passages, but this alone does not invalidate it as there is wide scholarly backing for the approach. It cannot and should not however take primacy over other criterion and must instead be used in concert with them to develop a nuanced portrait. As you mentioned however, it is not without its flaws and shortcomings - all the criterion have some issues inherent in their application and unfortunately the nature of the evidence always invokes a degree of subjectivity that can lead to vastly different portraits of Jesus.
I try not to editorialize too much but this is a position I can state unequivocally doesn't merit any respect - its fundamentally incoherent and an assault on the practice of history itself. There's plenty we don't know about the ancient past and I will hold to views that are in the minority on some issues myself - but the historicity of Jesus is as open and shut as anything can be from this era.
PhD Scholars that believe the Gospel Jesus never existed; Thomas L. Brodie, (His 2012 book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Thomas L. Thompson, Robert M Price, Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, George Albert Wells, (1975 book, Did Jesus Exist?, Earl Doherty, John M. Allegro, Alvar Ellegård, Archibald Robertson, Albert Schweitzer, On the Historicity of Jesus: by Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, Gerd Lüdemann, his book Paul, the founder of Christianity, Philip R. Davies, R. Joseph Hoffmann, Dan Barker, his book From Preacher to Atheist, John E. Remsburg, his book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, H.H. Mangasarian, his book, "The Truth about Jesus, is he a Myth? among many others.
In other words this video proves nothing. It is riddled with circular logic, blatant dismissal of anything that questions his existence as a real person and 'trust the experts' lunacy, even while admitting they don't know anything more than anyone else themselves, even admitting they 'infer' (aka make up without actual evidence) things You directly contradict your own logic multiple times, dismissing anything you don't agree with from supposed sources while also claiming it wouldn't matter if the majority or all of the things being said were made up for whatever reason, completely ignoring the fact that would invalidate them as sources for anything in itself. The existence of contradictory statements about him, combined with a completely non existent amount of actual physical evidence is in itself a huge indication that he did not exist Your 'sources' are nonsense. Nothing they say can be taken at face value or as evidence of anything. You're conveniently leaving out the fact that the majority of the people writing anything about him also claim he's literally the son of a god who magically ascended to a mythical heaven. In other words they're talking bs and any statements they make about him are based on bs. The christian writers have a reason to lie an to bs about things they were told by others as well as to believe the lies of others told to them, the romans had every reason to lie and none of them had even met him or seen any of the events first hand they were writing about. They were talking based on things other people had told them. as for famous historians and what they had to say about him, I suggest looking into their histories yourself. They frequently talked nonsense and flat out made things up on a fairly regular basis. Something such people have a long history of doing Not to mention you're being incredibly self righteous, pedantic and ignorant
*or as a danish history Magazine printed recently* What Danish magazine was that? I could easily counter with an entire issue of National Geographic devoted to searching for the historicity of Jesus and admitting they failed to find any evidence. *Historians agree that he was jewish religious leader executed by the romans around the year 30* I'd like to know where they got this date from. Because not even the bible says when he was executed. 😎
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *Not even Bible says he was executed" I think you didn't read Bible then* I think you didn't read my post. Go back and read my post again because I said "Because not even the bible says _when_ he was executed."
You should do another one where you actually show all the evidence and shove it in their skeptical faces! You probably just ran out of time. Next time...
Jesus existed in the form of 5 or 6 guys: 1) Jesus ben Ananias (preacher in Jerusalem from 62 to 69 CE) 2) Jesus ben Damneus (High Priest in 62 CE) 3) Jesus ben Sapphias (leader of fishermen and beggars in Galillee in 66/67 CE) 4) Jesus ben Pantera (Talmud and Celsus) 5) The Egyptian (in the time of Feliz, around 55 CE) 6) Jesus, the Nazorean (time of Pilate, around 30 CE) Apparently, Jesus, the Nazorean, was the chosen avatar by Christians. In the Nicean/Constantinoplan creed they made compulsory to believe that Jesus was crucified by Pilate
If you’re sa theses Christian doctrines came out of Nicaea then you would have to ignore ancient Christian writings around the middle first century and the late second century
@@xdaantihero Theophilus of Antioch, justin martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Tertullian, and etc. you can also watch a past live stream with Jay Dyer and Michael Jones where they go over apostolic fathers and their quotes about the Trinity.
@@kaianuvaldivia Every single last one of them existed after Jesus was crucified. They wasn't witnesses to him or his miracles, or his apostles. We don't know who wrote those gospels but we do know Paul's writings is the earliest so he's technically your father.
This presentation contains a statement that is objectively false: "No scholars with relevant credentials today advance the claim that Jesus was a purely mythological figure." Richard Carrier has a PhD in Ancient History and has published a peer reviewed work ""On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" These are verifiable objective facts. The presenter certainly has the right to his opinions but to deny reality is unprofessional as well as delusional and thus negates the content of his presentation. He needs to deal with the actual arguments not straw men.
I'm aware of Carrier but was hesitant to apply the "scholar" label to him as he holds no university position and his work is treated with disdain by the field at large. It's very funny to describe his work as "peer reviewed" as if this lends credibility when all the reviews slam him for shoddy work that relies on wishful thinking more than evidence. You may feel that I presented mythicism as a straw man but that's simply because there is no coherent way t present the theory. It breaks down immediately on contact with reality
How about Raphael Lataster, PhD, University of Sydney, adjunct professor? He is the author of "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus" also peer reviewed but I am sure you will find something wrong with him too. I have entitled your theory of peer review, "Peer Review Nullification." @@tribunateSPQR
@@tribunateSPQR *his work is treated with disdain by the field at large* His book was well-received by critics, so I think you have a little self--delusion going on there. And since when is a university position telling of someone's scholarly abilities? If he can make enough money on his own works, why would he need to work for a university when he can be an independent scholar?
There actually was never an objective account from a historian scientist before Richard Carrier "on the historicity of Jesus". Expect each statement about this matter connected with all the historical material to be found. The result is not conclusive (as it shouldn't be), more there is chance one in three that Jesus was a real person.
I suppose we are very lucky then that a guy 2000 years after the fact was the first to be able to write an objective history. Wonder why he can't get a university job...
*Wonder why he can't get a university job* Does he need one? His book writing allows him to make a living. You sound jealous. How's your university job going?
@@tribunateSPQR You can't expect on objective study from a professor who has tenure at a bible university. The study of Richard Carrier was sponsored by independent people. His credentials are impeccable and as for now there is no rebuttal in sight for this exhaustively researched monumental work. The least we can say that studies done by people that have a job at bible Universities can't be objective, their income depend on it.
@@albertmagician8613 Are you aware that the a large share of the scholars who study the new testament are not associated with any religious institution? Furthermore, the vast majority of scholars that study classical antiquity are not believing christians and hold positions at secular universities. It's also preposterous to imply that Carrier's work has never been rebutted - it shows that not only do you not have any interaction with the recent scholarly literature, you don't even know how to use Google. Carrier has been extensively refuted by scholars from across the spectrum of religious belief and non-belief. I'll leave you with a highly accessible piece of commentary from agnostic atheist Bart Ehrman: ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
Wow, this video is so full of inaccuracies and just plain wrong information. Definitely sounds like it’s made by someone trying to prove Jesus. It’s definitely not a scholastic account.
@@gregoryfilin8040 No, it means that the comparison in this video (between the date the gospels were written and the time gap between Alexander and the biography) is not a useful one and should be disregarded. How did you interpret my point to mean that Alexander did not exist?
@@MatthewCaunsfield Logical extrapolation of your standards outwards towards all historical figures. I'm merely pushing your idea to its logical conclusion and end goal.
Biblical words and names are Farsi/Persian, some are listed below: The word "God" is coming from "Good" and good comes from Farsi word " خوب - Khoob " and khoob comes from " خاک او - khaake-uo " and khaake-uo comes from " خاک - khaak " which means "Soil" or "Earth". The word "Khaak" is a natural and organic word/language/sound which is coming from the sound our mouth makes when ejecting/spitting out the dirt that has entered our mouth, it was used by mothers to teach children what to eat (enter their mouth) and whatnot. Deus and Dios are Farsi words "Darius" or "Cyrus [the Great"]. Hashem is " آهن شمش - aahan-shemsh " means "Iron Ingot" from Iran/Iron. Allah is " آهن آلات - aahan-aalat " means "Iron Tools / Metal Tools". Sallallahou Alayhe Wasallam, Arabic " صلي الله عليه وسلم " is " سرب و آهن و حلبی و مس زرد رنگ - sorbo-ahano-halabi-va-mese-zard-rang " which means "Lead, iron, tin and yellow copper". Allah o akbar is " آهنآلات خاک کن - aahan-alate-khak-kan " means "Iron tools to dig the ground" like Picks and Shovels. Mosses " مس ساز or مس دزد - mes-saz OR mes-dozd " means "coppersmith or copper thief" Jew "جا - jaa" = Room / Home / Shed Jesus "جا ساز - jaa-saaz" = Home builder Christ "کار است, کار دست - kaar-ast/kare-dast" = The work we do using our hands to build a home, determines the ownership of that house Genocide "جا نساز - jaa-na-saaz" = Do not build home Genesis "جا نسازید - jaa-na-saazeed" = Do not build house (purell for genocide) Gabrael "این جا بروید - jaa-beraveed" = Leave this home, executor of eviction Palestine "پا و دستان - paa-va-dastan" = Legs and hands, [construction] workers Disciple "دست پرکار or دست و پا دار - dast-o-paadar" = Having [skilled] hands for work Joseph "جا زاد - jaa-zaad" = The male who was born in that home Jouda "جا دار - jaa-daar" = One with home, not homeless John "جای من - jaa-ye-man" = My home [in the future] Judea "جادارها - jaa-daarha" = Those who have house (opposite of homeless) Moshe "مال من میشه - maale-man-mysheh" = It will be mine Judaism "جا دزدیست - jaa-dozdist" = Home/land thief Magi "مانده جا - mandeh-jaa" = The man who knows the owner of the home and land Maryam "مادرم - maadaram" = My mother, being a mother Mary "مادری - maadary" = Motherhood, a girl who is expected to be a mother (roots for marriage, madam, Ms and Mrs) Jahad "جا بخواه - jaa-bekhah" = Demand for having a home (not an enslaved on someone else's land) Salvation "بساز و بشین - besaz-o-beneshin" = To live in your own built house and living in there Babylon "برابرن - bara-baran" = Equals, people who shared the land equally amongst themselves Malachi "مالکان - malekan" = Landlords, owners of the houses. Pagan " پاره گان - paregan" = Those girls who lost their virginity Sodom [and] Gomorrah " سردمه گرمم کن - sardameh-garmam-kon" = I am cold, warm me up, It was used by prostitutes At that time there were no postal addresses, people used to put their name or their statue to claim the occupation of the home, like "Hassan's Home" so every name was followed by the word " jaa", later the tribe of yahoodies claimed the word "jaa" as their names to claim all the properties. Noah also picked the name "river" so they can also claim ownership of all the water bodies on land. Jesus also invented the Nail and Cross Joint to be used to build homes. Trinity is a Farsi word " سه گانگی - se-ghanegy " which means "[concept of] three [owners]". Father is the builder and the original owner of the house [there was no divorce and the mothers were automatically co owners with fathers), Sons will inherit the property to protect the mother and other siblings when the father is too old or is dead. Daughters were getting married and co-owned their husband's property. The Holy is " خالی - khali '' which means when the property is vacant and the word Spirit is " از بین رفت - az-bain-raft " which means building that is in ruins or was destroyed, in this state the Church will take ownership of the property and use it for single women, children and elders with no support. In the Concept of Trinity, God is the landlord. The Trinity was the base of the entire Christian and Western Civilization. The Council of Nicaea formalized Trinity as the official rule of the land and Constantin centralized and unified registering the properties (issuing deeds) and recording their owners' names, to that date registering and recording was done by local real estate agents and escrow companies of the time dominated by jews who were abusing and trafficking and abusing women and children who needed food and home. Virgin Mary means that Mary the mother of Jesus was a Virgin when married to Joseph, her virginity entitled her and Joseph to the ownership of the land and ability to pass the home to their son Jesus. The word Mashiach is a Farsi word " مال تو میشه - male-to-myshe " which means "It [Jerusalem] will be yours", if someone can prove that jews are the owner of Jerusalem then your war will be over. Mashiach is the same Arabic word as " ماشاالله " and Muslim use it often, it means that by working hard and doing a good job you will own your nice property. David is " دربان - darban " means "doorman/security guard/door keeper". [Mashiach] Ben David is " بی دربان - bee-darban " which means "no need for a doorman". Messiah is " مصالح - massaleh " = [construction] material, later it became " مسیر یاب - masser-yaab " which means path/direction/way Finder. Nazareth " نوزادگاه - nozadgah " which means Newborn nursery, Labor and delivery hospital and birth certificate registration [for legit children of married couples] Synagogue is " زن زادن جا - zan-zadan-ja " means where women can deliver baby, it was for delivering fatherless children and the children of rape victims or performing abortion. Delivered children were kept and were turned into slave soldiers, workers and the girls into sex slaves. Boys were tagged as slaved by tattoos and the girls by ear piercing. Ark of Covenant are Farsi words " آهنکن گاو نر - aahankan-gave-nar '' which means "Iron for Bull Cow" or "Plowshare". The wings are the accessories required to mount the plow. This was the shared/rental plow for the community and it was designed by Persians who extracted Iron from Iron ore for the first time, the name Iran is the same " آهن کار/ آهن دار - aahan-kar " means Black Smith" or "Those who have Iron".
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"Only fools revere the supernatural myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics could believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
Great analysis! 👌🏻Love confidence and directness! ❤🔥❤🔥❤🔥I recently watched video when some academic was talking about Jesus in historical context - the amount of initial backlash that video got and mean comments like "Will they gonna talk about Santa Claus next time" were truly bizzare to me. I was aware of mythicism theory, but I would never guess how much it is prevalent and how much people are blinded by anti-religious attitude to ignore all historical context. 🤦🏻♂
Thank you! There are of course many different historical interpretations of Jesus and scholars have constructed a wide range of portraits depending on how they weigh certain aspects of the evidence. From a historical perspective, all of this is valid. But mythicism is fringe and really just relegated to internet nobodies because to throw out the astounding evidence for his existence is so absurd that no scholar would ever make that assertion. It's a shame that loudmouths on the internet are so far behind scholarship that they're ignorant of just how isolated they are
Mythcism is not fringe. Most all secular scholars are mythicists, they just don't call themselves that. e.g. they say that Jesus _probably_ existed, but they mean a man, not the Jesus of the bible, which then moots the entire point if a man named Yeshua (the John Smith of 1st century Judea) lived but didn't do anything the bible says he did. Or they say the bible Jesus is a composite character made up of several different wandering messiahs at the time. IOW, not a real person. IOW, a myth.
@@druidriley3163 It absolutely IS fringe. 'but they mean a man, not the Jesus of the bible, which then moots the entire point if a man named Yeshua (the John Smith of 1st century Judea) lived but didn't do anything the bible says he did. ' - NONE is saying that Jesus didn't do ANYTHING what Bible says. However we cannot confirm how much Jesus did so the only certain fact remains his death by cross. 'Yeshua (the John Smith of 1st century Judea) ' - No - not 'just Yeshua'. Yeshua of Nazareth, son of Mary, stepson of Jospeh, maternal half-brother (or cousin) to James, Jospeh, Simon, Judah and two girls. If Jesus was 'composite character', I wonder why most sources give him exact same family members.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *NONE is saying that Jesus didn't do ANYTHING what Bible says. However we cannot confirm how much Jesus did so the only certain fact remains his death by cross* But they can't prove it. And not all scholars say this. Some say Jesus of the bible was a composite figure, created from several wanna-be messiahs running around at the time. Which means 1) Jesus of the bible didn't exist and 2) there were a bunch of Yeshuas running around in 1st century Judea. No argument against any of those.
This is a pretty bad video. Instead of blathering about the untenability of the mythicist position on a general basis, you should go through the actual evidence there is that he was a historical person and also explain the methodology used to sift out the true elements. You need reliable primary sources, all else is irrelevant. There are a few independent sources of Jesus's existence.
That's the problem with just going through the actual evidence. It's the assumptions of what should be considered that matter. In ancient history, if we ignore all but "reliable primary sources", we lose nearly everything except bits of archeological evidence. Especially if we rule out sources that are likely to be biased - like for example any contemporary writing about an emperor or a student like Plato writing about a teacher. Primary sources are great when they exist, but antiquity is so poorly documented that very often even for great rulers, the only real information comes from histories or biographies written generations later.
It's Surprising that The Historians like Josephus, Pliny and other who are from the first century, Has Not written much on Jesus's life, his miraculous birth, Crucifixion and So called Resurrection.. except Few lines
Great point - I should have mentioned that the existence of Jesus is well attested in Jewish literature of the period even as they reject Christian claims about him. My expertise is more on the roman sources (which are also abundant) so I unintentionally passed over a strong piece of evidence. Not that this would have done much good with the bizarre comments I'm getting from internet types desperate to see Jesus as ahistorical
I guess you guys have yet to learn to accept that one simply does not argue with Internet people. People believe what they want to believe, it's as simple as that. Neither side will ever convince anyone of anything - its an entirely pointless endeavour. Even more so when there actually is a clearly established consensus. Just go with the flow 😉
I argue frequently with mythicists all the time. On principle, I believe bad reasoning should always be countered. I’m not always trying to convince the person I argue with, but any undecided people that stumble upon the comments section. If you make it easy for people to write crap (by not challenging it), then more people are likely to believe it.
I am a Christian, and no one can make me otherwise...i dont care what secular academics say or believe...i know my redeemer live and he is alive and ressurected and will come again to rule the world...😊
That is a view perfectly in line with the historical record. His existence doesn't imply anything supernatural. To believe so is pretty much what makes one a Christian.
There's proof of the Resurrection and it's in Turin right now. It wasn't debunked in 1988, that debunking attempt was scientifically botched and was later updated with proof of authenticity.
I like this channel for careful research and insightful historical analysis. But this is more dodgy work. I agree that, on the whole, the most plausible position is that Jesus was a historical figure. But claiming that it is an absolute certainty is unwarranted and implausible. It even contradicts your analysis that explicitly relies on the claim that we should expect a paucity of hard evidence for someone in the era who did not belong to the social elite. How does that not leave at least some room for scepticism? But the most puzzling point is the parallel you draw with Caligula. It is true that we know the details of his life and reign from hostile historians writing decades later. But we have coins minted during his reign, for crying out loud! And the remnants of his famed 'round ship' that Pliny mentions were found in Italy in the 20th century. (The ruins are dated to 37 CE.) is your analogy is supposed to work here exactly? This is corroboration of a detail from an ancient historian that has no parallels in Jesus's case.
Think like mythicist : About the Dalaï Lama, the 2 options are : A. He is the genuine reincarnation of the Buddha. B. He doesn't exist at all. Or : You believe Adolf Hitler was a real person?? You must be a Nazi yourself !!
Hardly? I'm no Christian, but there is an incredible amount of evidence to indicate Jesus existed. Histories were not written then as they are now, so every source is biased. It's about determining what bias is likely to exaggerate and what is likely to be factual. There are several things we can conclude about Jesus' life, and there is also a lot we cannot know.
@@DocKinne Those are things we can conclude: Jesus was Jewish man from 1st century AD, who was wandering preacher and at some point in his 30s he lost his life during Pilate residence in Judea, and Jesus's followers were still spreading his teachings. He had male kin called James who was bishop in Jerusalem - presumably his younger maternal half-brother - he was son of woman named Mary and paternity of his legal father was questioned. He also at some point met John of Baptist (his maternal cousin accoridng the Bible) and probably took baptism from him. Not to much, but pretty enough.
Caesar's Messiah is a 2005 book by Joseph Atwill that argues that the New Testament Gospels were written by a group of individuals connected to the Flavian family of Roman emperors: Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. The authors were mainly Flavius Josephus, Berenice, and Tiberius Julius Alexander, with contributions from Pliny the Elder. Although Vespasian and Titus had defeated Jewish nationalist Zealots in the First Jewish-Roman War of 70 AD, the emperors wanted to control the spread of Judaism and moderate its political virulence and continuing militancy against Rome. Christianity, a pacifist and pro-Roman authority religion, was their solution.
This would mean Roman elites forfeiting their Temples, schools, science, medicine, and engineering, throughout the empire, all this to prevent another Jewish uprising in an insignificant province?
From 1st century we have: 4 canonical gospels, multiple letters, Acts, Jospehus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Talmud texts and letter of man called Mara bar Serapion that alludes to Jesus (he mentioned very much alive teaching of Jewish King who died on the cross - and only two men with that title died this way are Jesus and Antigonus; Antignous was completely frogotten by the end of 1st century). Gospels and other Christian sources were all made independently - there were different author behind each.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *From 1st century we have: 4 canonical gospels* None of which are contemporary to the time of Jesus. None of which claim to be eyewitness accounts, and they're all copies of each other, not independent accounts. *multiple letters* No letters dated from the time of Jesus. *Acts* written around the same time as the book of Luke, probably by the same person, and the book of Luke is dated anywhere from 75 ce to 93 ce. Again, not contemporary to the time of Jesus. *Jospehus* Not born at the time Jesus supposedly lived. Writing nearly 70 years later, and his Testimonium Flavinium is mostly considered an interpolation by later Christians. He didn't write it. *Tacitus* also not born when Jesus supposedly lived. Writing nearly 100 years after the time of Jesus, he only wrote what Christians of his time believed. That's not evidence. *Suetonius* also not born when Jesus supposdly lived only mentions a Chrestus stirring trouble in Rome during the time of Claudius. He's _obviously_ not talking about Jesus *Talmud texts* written nearly a century and a half after the time of Jesus. Not evidence. *letter of man called Mara bar Serapion* Who never mentioned Jesus or even wrote the name Jesus. Christians just _assume_ he's talking about Jesus. So you've not named a single contemporary source.
@@druidriley3163 Doesn't matter if this is from his lifetime. It is the SAME century. 'They're all copies of each other, not independent accounts.' - We already talked about this: John is NOT copy of synoptic gospels. And synpotic gspels are not copies either - Luke adn Matthew have similarities with Mark, but there are also differences, suggesting existence of some other indpendent source. THINK - if they would all be 'copies', we would have ONE sinoptic gospel, not three. 'Again, not contemporary to the time of Jesus.' - It is contemporary to people who lived when Jesus was still alive. Jesus story didn't die with him, there were many living witnesses, some of them very young.
@@druidriley3163 'Writing nearly 70 years later, and his Testimonium Flavinium is mostly considered an interpolation by later Christians. He didn't write it. ' - Lie again. Testimonium is PARTIAL interpolation. Neither Jospehus and Tacitus are Christians, but none of them try cast doubt on Christians by claiming their source of inspration was fictional character. 'Talmud texts written nearly a century and a half after the time of Jesus' - Some talmud texts were written as early ads late 1st century. ' Christians just assume he's talking about Jesus.' - I already told this: about WHOM else he would talk about? I mentioned multiple sources contemporary to Jesus' disciples. Yes, they are posthumous to him, but most were made during time when his witnesses were still alive.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *Lie again. Testimonium is PARTIAL interpolation* So how was I lying? The interpolation is agreed upon, what is still up for debate is how much of it is interpolated. That still hasn't been decided. And since you didn't even know it had been in the first place you're not in any position to sling stones. *Neither Jospehus and Tacitus are Christians,* No, one was pagan and one was Jewish. The pagan one was only repeating what Christians of his time believed. The Jewish one...he didn't believe in messiahs, if you read the rest of his writings. *Some talmud texts were written as early ads late 1st century* Some and still not contemporary. *I already told this: about WHOM else he would talk about* Did you read Josephus? There were at least half a dozen or so would-be messiahs running around during that time. Probably more. Serapion could have been talking about any of them. *but most were made during time when his witnesses were still alive* Yet what are these witnesses names? Do you know?
A Jesus bin Joseph may have existed but every image of him is pure trope. White boy Jesus never existed in any sense anyway. That's what you missed in your straw man version of the critique.
You should probably watch Zeitgeist. There’s absolutely no consensus among historians about his existence. Most “sources” are christians historians, so…
I know Wikipedia is not the be all end all of research, but it's always a good starting point. anyways, literally the second sentence in jesus' Wikipedia article reads: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically."
The 'Jesus Myth' crowd are so goddamn annoying. I of little faith have admittedly, unfortunately spent too much time addressing their inane arguments that would get them laughed out of any history or classical studies department in the country.
Religious studies are not taught in history or classical studies department. They're taught in religious programs. Interestingly, if any _Christian_ scholar deviates from the party line of Jesus being historical - they write about doubts and possibilities of forgeries - _they're_ the ones fired from their programs.
The question of myth or not is irrelevant until you state which Jesus figure you're talking about. Possible that "a" Jesus, a preaching Jew, roamed the land of Galilee and gathered a following? Sure, why not. Jesus was a common name in that area and there's plenty of attestation of travelling preachers/rabbi's. However, "the" Jesus, the resurrected one, son of a god (or god himself?), to which many miraculous deeds, healings, etcetera are ascribed is more likely mythological than historical.
You can reject all the magical elements attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, as testified in the gospels, and still be left with a historical figure. THE Jesus of the gospels did, in fact, exist. He was baptized by John the Baptist, spoke in parables, thought he was the messiah, spoke of a coming kingdom, had 12 apostles, was betrayed, and was crucified.
@@ShunM-vr6mt All of this is based on what we state as "for so says the bible". We only know from the gospel according to Mark that John the Baptist baptised him. Everything this figure supposedly said (or even thought) comes from the gospels. I can likewise strip Harry Potter from all his magical powers and dismiss Hogwarts and a magical world exist, and then state that what's left--a teenager living in England underneath a staircase--is historical. Yet we know that is not the case. So your methodology is at best unhelpful. The broader point is that it may be possible that a Jewish preacher existed, that he upset Roman rule and the civitas tranquili and was subsequently executed. Hower, "possible" doesn't get us to probable, let alone accepted as historical fact. There is simply a general lack of verifiable (archeological) evidence and independent attestation that holds to the requirement of provenance. Tacitus mentions a person who his followers call the christ was crucified. However, Tacitus doesn't mention his sources, something he usually does. So it is more likely that he got such "info" or "hearsay" from early christians. That does not rise to the standard of independent attestation. Historians don't work that way. Conclusion: until real material evidence turns up, we'll never know, and just like a plethora of "historical" figures he'll remain historical speculation.
Great presentation and it's surprising to see so much pushback in the comments for these noncontroversial claims. If you argued a specific interpretation of the historical jesus I could understand there being a stronger reaction but not to the simple claim that a man existed
what claims? He doesn't even present an argument for historicity outside the gospels. This is a terrible history video. A shame, because he could have done a proper one, and instead went for a sunday class diatribe. Shame.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT The fact you liken this to sunday school kinda lays bare exactly why you hold the position you hold, namely that you have a problem with the religion of Christianity.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, but maybe when he is thirsty enough, he will open his eyes and see a stream flowing in front of him "Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." Gospel of John, chapter 4. Many lives have been changed over the past 2000 years because of a "myth". Headhunters gave up their ancestral violence, cannibals changed their menu, Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion still used today by NASA, while looking for the star of Bethlehem, and countries (like the USA) were founded just for the freedom to worship Him. Cold case detective J.Warner Wallace tried to prove the myth theory to his wife using all of his cold case detective skills, and he now has dedicated his life to letting the world know the result of his investigation; Jesus lived, and the Gospels are eye witness accounts.
But it makes historical existence of the person a moot point. If there was a man named Yeshua in 1st century Judea (there were probably dozens, the name was so common), but he didn't do anything the bible says he did, what difference does it make if he was historical?
@@druidriley3163 Sure. Just because someone by the name of Yeshua is mentioned in an ancient document doesn't mean he was THE Yeshua (Jesus of the New Testament).
What do you believe is the most convincing evidence for the historical Jesus?
For me, the strongest evidence is that there are so many different sources that talk about him and his followers, not just the gospels, but also other writers like Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and the Talmud.
They all agree on some basic facts, like that Jesus lived in Palestine, taught and healed people, had disciples, and was killed by the Romans. I think that’s more convincing than the mythicists, who seem to have unrealistic expectations and double standards for historical proof.
The twelve men plus Saint Paul went the rest of their lives preaching what they heard and saw, they gained nothing from it and suffered horribly for it. 12 of the 13 being killed over it. Men dont throw away their lives so easily and for nothing.
There is no evidence for any existance, Jesus is a composite satirical character made up of several jewish messianic leaders from the first century. There is ample proof the Gospels are Roman engineered propaganda.
What evidence? Contemporary sources? Even circumstantial evidence?
@@GimpCentargumentum ad populum fallacy.
14:10 bro let the voices win and decided to throw in his diss track at the back of the album
After 15 minutes of trying to be reasonable, I just had to let it out
@@tribunateSPQR I laughed hard. That was a very funny addition. Thank you!
@@tribunateSPQR a man after my own heart! Sometimes you just have to let it out!
I am not sure if Jesus existed or not. I lean toward that he did. But your logic for saying so is not correct. By your logic the characters in the Book of Mormon are also real. When characters are created to peddle religion the standards are not the same methodology.
The Roman texts simply repeat the gospels or the belief of the christians in the gospels. The fact gospels are not direct Christian fabrications does not mean there is an actual Jesus. Those Roman texts would need to be independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, providing new details, actual testimonies. But zero contemporary Roman historian ever mentioned Jesus. Paul, the only contemporary to have written about Jesus, only ever met people who had seen Jesus only in visions and revelations.
Josephus, a Jewish Pharisee, the antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter 3
“63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
@@turturkeykey3403
Actually, that quote was suspected to be a Christian fabrication. Here's the real quote:
"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"
This is what the Historian Tacitus said about Jesus:
"Therefore, to stop the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."
based on eye witnesses
@@neomatrix4412 yes, hundreds of eyewitnesses many of whom were put to death yet would not recant what they saw
I like it! Not just a defense of Jesus' historicity, but a passionate and reasoned defense of history itself as a discipline.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I view the two as intricately connected since the adoption of double standards is indicative of disdain for history as we have actually received it and a slap in the face of the real men and women who lived, died and sacrificed to make our world possible.
as hitchens says " why go all those lengths and lie about roman census to have Jesus born in Bethleham but be from Nazareth if it was a complete fiction ? Why couldn't they invent a rabbi who was born in Nazareth? This lie shows us that Jesus did exist but he didn't met the criteria to be a Nazarene."
This is Christopher Hitchens not me.
Its his words, not mine.
And I’ve argued this point exactly with people that thought Hitchens was a mythicist….to no avail.
The problem with Hitchens argument is that he's only talking about 2 gospels. The other two gospels are just as highly venerated and didn't see the importance of placing Jesus' birth in Bethlehem at all.
Happy Easter!
Named after the Indo European dawn goddess, yes happy Eostre.
Wasn't so happy for jesus
@@seanstott6168 Rising from the dead, and making all of your friends happy, and having accomplished the most grueling quest in the universe, with a future of reigning as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, forever and ever, not so happy for Jesus? Really?
@@S.J.L who cares who it might be named after, it what it celebrates that matters
@@liljade53 Agreed, we're all celebrating the elemental divinity of the dawn, spring and spiritual awakening. Glad you agree. Namaste compadre.
I'm somewhere between agnostic, atheist, and anti-religion as a whole, and even I am humble enough to know history points to Jesus existing, just as it does for Muhammad and Siddhartha Gautama. What I am surprised by is how *sassy* this video got at the end. Hahaha.
I was blowing off a little steam there at the end as I found myself increasingly frustrated that I needed to establish something so basic. I'm still shocked people work themselves into knots to deny something that has literally know theological or metaphysical implications whatsoever
Except there is no history. That's why the Jesus story is told in church, not in history class.
@@druidriley3163What about Siddhartha Gautama and Muhammad? Did they also not exist?
Good video fellas. Kept the focus in exactly the right place.
much appreciated, thank you!
It’s important to remember that the Gospels - themselves - are sources written by people who knew the Disciples of Jesus or were written by the Disciples themselves.
The Pauline letters are known to have been written by Paul the Apostle, lending further credence to the authenticity of the Bible.
After that point, the entire matter concerning miracles and Jesus’s resurrection are up to personal interpretation. From a historian’s perspective, we cannot definitively say that they did or did not happen as all we have to go by are the accounts of the Apostles. However, outside of this, we can say - for certain - that Jesus was real and that Jesus was highly influential in swaying thousands of Jews towards him.
First sentence is 100% false. The Gospels were written anonymously, decades after the events they describe, by authors trained in Greek rhetoric (i.e. not by Galilean fishermen). They do not read at all like independent eyewitness reports, as the synoptics rely on one another for large numbers of verbatim passages, and recount events at which no apostles were present (trial before Pilate, for example). Gospel of John is even later. Also note that we have no first or second century manuscripts of any of the Gospels, other than small fragments, so we have no way of knowing that the texts we have weren't altered. The names that the Gospels appear under today were applied later, and we have no good evidence that they are accurate.
Paul says explicitly that he did not base any of his ideas on conversations with any witnesses to Jesus, and in fact disparages Peter as a "nobody." Instead, he tells us all of his information about Jesus came to him in visions.(Galatians 1:12) Paul is therefore not an eyewitness either.
The fact that the Gospels were originally written anonymously is well known among non-apologist biblical scholars.
@@jamesheartney9546 The ending of Mark 16 and the beginning of John 8 wasn't in the original Greek. The beginning of John 8 isn't in the Aramaic NT.
Cannot remember that. The gospels were written at least a decade after his alleged crucifixion, and had authors unknown.
@@jamesheartney9546 it sounds like your standard for an eyewitness account is someone journaling either as it happens or shortly after.
3 decades is nothing.
My 9 year old son passed away last year. In 30 years, I could still give you a solid account of his life, and especially the day he passed.
A guy rises from the dead and you discredit the gospels because of a 30 year gap.
They fact that everything in them was not witnessed by the author doesnt discredit the eyewitnessing
As my son lived, I heard stories about things he did while I wasnt there. I would include them in any biography I wrote about him, does this mean I was not an eyewitness to his life?
@@jamesheartney9546>The Gospels were written anonymously
there is no evidence of this. all existing manuscripts have the authors listed afaik
>The names that the Gospels appear under today were applied later, and we have no good evidence that they are accurate.
how do we know they were applied later when there are no existing manuscripts from the 1st or 2nd century? that's completely baseless conjecture
I am not aware of a single _evidentiary fact_ that goes toward demonstrating the historicity of this Jesus.
Then I suggest you watch the video.
@tribunateSPQR I have. That doesn't change my statement. Are you aware of any _evidentiary facts_ that demonstrate the historicity of this Jesus? Yes or no.
I didn't think so.
@@Theo_Skeptomai 8:15
@kaianuvaldivia None of those sources can demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. If you would like to discuss these sources one at a time, let me know.
i don't think i've ever met someone in real life who argues jesus didn't exist. i didn't realize it was that controversial. i don't believe he had holy powers, but sure he was probably a dude.
They're here in the comments
Why they* was probably a dude? Why could they* not be a woman? Or a non-binary person? Misogynistic transphobic tr*sh...
Yeah, it's almost entirely a small group of very online people that have no understanding of the historical method and are primarily motived by a strong distaste for the modern religion of Christianity more than anything else. Basically angry athiest teenagers. As said in the video, acknowledging the historiocity of Jesus doesn't involve any faith or religion or even thinking that there was anything supernatural about him whatsoever. But they are SO consumed by anger at religion that even admitted that small amount is a step too far. Their desire is to humiliate the religion and anyone who follows it as following a myth, and they don't care whatsoever about what historians think.
@@Tinil0 Sorry, I but it is exactly the opposite, and this video is a perfect example. It is full of fallacies, presents NO argument outside the gospels, and basically exits stage left. He could do a nice job, but chose the cowardly way. threw a hissy fit.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT Did you not watch the whole video? He presented arguments outside of the gospels.
I did not know Jesus mythosist where such a big problem over in America until i check the comments. Sorry to hear you guys have deal with that. Can't think of a single scholar that holds this position. Not even the overly critical Bart Ehrman.
It's a position advocated entirely on the internet - ask any of them to name a real scholar who holds this view and they'll name a 50 year old book by someone with qualifications in a completely different field
No scholars hold that opinion, but plenty of Redditors do
He was a being created by God that had no consciousness. No man can have the power of God. So basically a shell to carry out plans. God doesn’t really care about religion or worship, it was just a manner to subdue early barbarians. All will be explained in the upcoming rapture on God’s 14th billionth birthday. Y’all should drink up, God is banning alcohol after the rapture.
Ironically, Richard Carrier - who employs the historical method - is such a scholar who thinks Jesus is a myth. But even he thinks there's a 33% chance there was a historical Jesus.
His point is: Jesus could be a figure like Robin Hood, General Ludd or John Frum: various real people combined with myth (based on Jewish "angelology", Jesus as the high priest in heaven). Carrier does away with Josephus by pointing out what is mentioned in this video: that the record has been doctored by later Christians.
Carrier hopes that slowly this position will become the scholarly consensus - similar how Moses was revised from historical person to myth. Whether he's right... only time will tell.
Note: this video would be much more credible if it would not start with framing the mythicist position as inconsistent, untrustworthy and having a hidden agenda.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 No. Carrier simply concludes that Jesus was a COMPLETE myth SOLELY because people (Greeks) years after his life attached commonly known mythological "tropes" to Jesus in order to embellish his life and make it relatable to the Hellenic world of the Mediterranean. Carrier points to the stories of other completely mythological characters that are VERY similar to the stories attributed to Jesus and thus declares that Jesus MUST have been entirely a myth as well. Jesus cannot be a myth while being 33% an historical figure. He is either a bonified historical figure or a complete myth. Can't have both!
Actually we have better evidence for the existence of Pilate, including a stela with his name and mentions by contemporary historians. We also have better evidence for, say, Spartacus.
Can you list some sources for the existence of Pontius Pilate
No true at all. There are more than 14 extra biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus. He is the best attested ANE historicity figure bar none.
Hmm… I’m sure this topic won’t raise any controversy at all…
We genuinely didn't expect it to be controversial - we're presenting mainstream scholarship on the issue and a conclusion that is shared by a wide range of experts, from atheists to practicing Christians. The fact that there is still so much misinformation here and references to faulty sources shows why the video was necessary though
Among idiots yes
@@tribunateSPQR okay that's bull LOL you literally are here saying you're trying to be as harsh as possible. You can't say just because we lack definite information that people who doubt are denying reality. Is the denial unlikely? sure. but is it possible? also yes. sure mythacists aren't acting in good faith, but neither are you here. So i can't consider your argument without a bias inclination
I have come to the conclusion that Socrates was a group of philosophers that Plato idolized and came to be known as the mythical figure Socrates. Many philosophers were forced to drink poison at the time and had various myths and teachings about them. Franz Meusebach wrote extensively on this.
The burden of proof for the existence of someone named Jesus in Judea who led a religious movement is pretty low. Jesus was a common name, and there were plenty of religious movements in Judea. It's also not very hard to believe that the Romans would have crucified such a person.
7:37 "The position espoused by conservative Christians today that He was the divine Son of God." Not sure why 'conservative' was added here. Regardless of the particular theological/political orientation, this is fundamental Christian dogma that is proclaimed by the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Even non-Trinitarian traditions have various explanations of how Jesus is both God and the Son in some more metaphorical sense.
You're right and I regret the language used here - I was attempting to draw a distinction between the two extremes of biblical accuracy and in so doing it looked like I was attributing this view of Jesus to only conservative Christians. I understand that it is the dominant view and is shared by all orthodox traditions within Christianity.
@@tribunateSPQR I figured as much. Great video otherwise and keep putting out great content! Peace be with you.
It’s funny that you think we can separate fact from myth involving things that happened 2000 years ago when we can’t even do that today.
This video starts off by claiming the public doesn't understand the methods of professional historians. But we do. I personally know a couple of professional historians - university academics. They have a strong inclination to tell a good story and get facts wrong and omit facts contrary to their story. Look at TH-camr Mark Felton - a university history teacher specialisiing in World War 2. He gets a lot of things wrong, especially when he talks about the war in the pacific. But he tells a good story.
I fully believe that you are familiar with the methods and methodology of academic historians as are most of the viewers of this video - but we're a small subset of the population that are passionate about history and though I wish this commitment was more broadly shared I don't think the general public has a solid grasp on what constitutes a valid historical approach.
Even many of the comments on this video reject the overwhelming consensus of scholarship on this issue which shows that there is a tendency to reject historical evidence and expertise if it aligns with pre-existing beliefs.
Thoroughly enjoyable video, and a great defence of historical scholary methodology.
Many thanks!
While I find the Jesus mythicist position to be absurd, given the historical data, and by employing the historical method, this video title and some rhetoric within the video is not accurate. Historians do not "know" Jesus existed. Because unless the content creators are using "know" in a colloquial way and not as an absolute certainty, historians can be absolutely certain about historical figures from antiquity.
Very poorly researched if he believes no academics assert mythicism and have published peer reviewed books on it - and he’s condescending towards them.
😂 we have more & better evidence of Pontius Pilate than Jesus …are u just lying or ignorant?
Pilate's Life
As a historical figure, we have evidence of contemporary literature, coins minted in his name, and an inscription from the base of what may have included his statue from the city of Caesarea. Our literary sources for Pilate include the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria
So i used to have a rather agnostic view of historical jesus but something that fueled it was that when pointing towards textual evidence i got a vague "josephus" & the tacitus quote which, idk if its the translation or something but it came off
As "nero did things to christians; the christians believe X" which read as proof of christians"
Getting the actual citations changes the perspective radically
Your view on history is refreshing, to many use it to create a context of moral or racial expectations. Great work 👍
The Odyssey and Iliad were written down centuries after the events they described and were considered aprocryphal until Schliemann found Troy in th 19th century.
Indeed. And does anyone believe the discovery of Troy makes the Odyssey and Illiad historical documents that prove the existence of Greek gods?
@@druidriley3163 Of course not. But they provide evidence for the Trojan War and the possible existence of some of the humans mentioned in the two sagas. Bear in mind that if Jesus existed, it does not prove that he was a god.
@@nickd4310 Well sure, historians have not doubted some of the characters in the bible mentioned were real -- Herod, Pilate. Roman emperor - but the main character?
@@druidriley3163 The title of the video is "How do we know Jesus existed," not whether God exists. An historian can conclude on the balance of probabilities that an historical Jesus existed without believing in gods. Alternatively, a religious person may believe Jesus was a God without any evidence for his existence.
@@nickd4310 Many people believe Jesus=God. Keep reading the comments and you'll see. *historian can conclude on the balance of probabilities that an historical Jesus existed without believing in gods* I'd rather a historian use evidence, not probabilities on the existence of a figure from antiquity.
What first hand accounts do we have of Jesus's life?
The gospels
Did you not finish the sentence where the word "embarassment" was mentiond before posting this? Embarassment was mentioned not as proof that "they would have only included it if it REALLY happened", but as a heuristic tool for considering if it is worth dismissing a historical anecdote entirely or to analyze it further.
There may have been a rabbi-Jesus, but he and bible-Jesus have nothing but a name in common. Bible-Jesus is totally mythological. There was no virgin birth of Jesus. There is no extra-biblical evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus (though there is evidence that others were crucified). There is no extra-biblical evidence for any miracle performed by Jesus. There was no resurrection of Jesus. Rabbi-Jesus, on the other hand, may have had some followers, but he was no Messiah. Josephus wasn't even born when the crucifixion supposedly took place, and his writing about Jesus came decades later and is thought by experts to have been forged. Furthermore, even if Josephus' writings about Jesus were not forged, they do not and cannot attest to his divinity which is a fabrication.
You're responding to claims we didn't make - we don't argue here that the historical method backs any miraculous claims (all we can know is that Christians believed these claims). The similarities between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith have been debated for centuries and likely will for centuries more.
As for evidence of his crucifixion, this is one of the things that we can absolutely know for certain about him as it is relayed in both Christian sources (which are historically valid for these limited purposes) and non-Christian works like those of Tacitus and Josephus. Certain aspects of Josephus are of course later interpolations but scholars have identified a historical core as legitimate to the original work. The fact that he was writing decades later is irrelevant because as mentioned we also accept works like Plutarch as primary sources though his biographies were written centuries after some of his subjects.
@@tribunateSPQR No, I'm not. I'm making an assertion, not a response to a claim. There was no bible-Jesus. That Jesus did not exist. There may have been a rabbi-Jesus. That is not a response to any claim made in your video. There was no crucifixion of Jesus. That claim was made by Christians and may have been repeated by historians as a Christian doctrine. Biblical sources are NOT historically accurate for these limited purposes. Biblical sources occasionally coincide with historical sources but are not historical themselves. The books of the bible are religious in nature, not historical in nature. They are not interchangeable except in the case of the history of religion. Therefore, there may be some historical accounts that mention the claims or dogma of a religious group without affirming the events actually took place. That is the case with the crucifixion. No historian affirmed that Jesus was crucified but that Christians say he was.
The author of the Gospel According to Saint John definitely witnessed the crucifixion of someone beaten & scourged as is described as happening to Christ. The proof is his description of the centurion thrusting his lance into Christ’s RIGHT side and seeing WATER AND BLOOD flow out. Something only an eyewitness could know, medical science tells us. Stabbing crucified victims was not standard practice. Doctors say that watery fluid would have built up & surrounded the heart in the pericardium sac in someone receiving all the wounds Christ did.
No one could make up that medical fact, sorry.
Great video on an interesting topic! You definitely got a chuckle out of me when you shared your personal thoughts too
Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah that just came out as I was writing due to my sheer frustration at having to cover such an inane topic in such depth
You keep claiming there is historical evidence, yet you fail to show it. Why not quote sources? Give us, as they say, "book, chapter and verse" of historical books that contain authentic references of Jesus.
thank you, I knew there will be someone pointing that out :) imo this video is a lot of demagogy
The crucifixion of Jesus is an example of an event that meets the criterion of embarrassment. This method of execution was considered the most shameful and degrading in the Roman world, and advocates of the criterion claim this method of execution is therefore the least likely to have been invented by the followers of Jesus.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment#Examples
I am an atheist. I don't believe in the supernatural, but I believe the Jesus story is very loosely based on a real person.
@@kenmcnutt2it’s about belief not evidence.
@@erichaynes5826 depends on if we are talking supernatural claims or not.
Josephus, the antiquities of the Jews, book 18 chapter 3
“63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
Hi, can you please name the Art at 2:16?
Happy Easter y'all.
Thank you for being driven by fact and rationality. Massive respect for calling out the political activists presenting themselves as "scientifically" driven people.
True "objectivity" is impossible and we are best suited to investigate the truth when we are aware of our own biases
Did you put this out on Easter on purpose? Seems to have become quite the controversy in the comments
us court controversy? ...never
Duuuude, I really liked this one. I think I was holding onto some early-aughts nu-atheism edgelord baggage... "It is a war on the discipline of history itself" indeed.
Thank you, very glad you enjoyed it!
The historical Jesus is profoundly unimportant. The magical Jesus of the New Testament and his enchanted friends are the much more important.
could you please add more content to your actual content? I would have much preferred if of the 20 minutes which compose this video more than 5 were dedicated to the actual historicity of Jesus rather than explaining over and over the same approach adopted by historians with much petulance
This channel is mad underrated.
thank you! Every comment helps us just that much more so I appreciate you taking the time to give positive feedback
I hold the same disdain for mythicists for their "war on history" I also hold that same disdain for those who believe in the miracles as well. Both Myth and Miracles are ahistorical.
Great Video btw!!!!!!
Sorry but starting from a naturalist presupposition is just that presupposition one should be open for both supernatural and natural explanations to events. That does not mean blind faith but if the best explanation is a super natural it's most likely true. Otherwise one assumes that the material world is the only reality that exist and that is just bad metaphysics.
@@wizardmadnes8035are you open to Hinduism or Islam or Shintoism? The issue with presupposing the supernatural is that there are hundreds of modern and thousands of ancient interpretations of the supernatural. There is only one nature, and it is something that we can observe and test everyday, regardless where we are are what we believe and the results of the tests are the same.
The "best explanation" is "most likely true" is terrible metaphysics because there is no metric for what is the "best explanation." If you asked a Roman why earthquakes happen he would say that it is because of Neptune duh, and that was the "best explanation" at the time, does that therefore mean it is true? Of course not. Through a naturalistic understanding of the world we stopped blaming gods or God for earthquakes and now understand tectonic plates.
What I presuppose is that evidence should come before belief. We only have evidence for the natural. So I can see why religious folk believe I and others "presuppose" a natural world only. There are those which this video rightly calls out who are ardently against any supernatural beliefs to the point where they deny reality which is a serious issue.
thank you!
Ah, bothsides.
@@wizardmadnes8035 Yes wizard of Oz otherwise he is a charlatan.
interesting and informative as always
Thanks again!
Religion or belief's are a part oh human civilization. It's an anser to questions no one can answer and a way to keep or help keep people on the right path in life. It gives people hope and helps them cope with death... it does a lot of good things for the needy in most cases. So is Jesus real? I wouldn't know but if it makes people deal better with thier lives to believe he is than i feel that is absolutely fine. During hard times or desperate times in my life i have preyed for strength or guidance and it helped me feel better and helped me to deal with the situations.
Gospels not historical but mythology, remember there are 30+ gospels written by UNKNOWN authors 600 miles away, nobody even knows when they were written
Paul doesn’t even mention a historical Jesus only spiritual Jesus made by god
Jesus lived and died on the cross, I witnessed it and Jesus is real, and I am serious.
There was a historical basis of course. But ..... There is where the fun begins 🙂
I think that everything past acknowledging his existence and death by crucifixion is up for debate and there is plenty of evidence to support a wide range of interpretations but if someone can't even admit to those tow well established facts then they aren't really able to contribute to the conversation.
...I'm sorry, did you bring up the criterion of embarrassment? That's an infamous fundie canard. We are not in a position to know in the modern day what people of that time would be embarrassed by. What's more, sometimes people deliberately include embarrassing details into their embellished stories, specifically to humanize themselves and appear more trustworthy. Trying to say "this detail is embarrassing to the author, therefore they would have only included it if it REALLY happened" is basically nonsensical from a historical analysis standpoint.
I have just watched the entire video and I'm sure he didn't bring up that criterion.
@@ErickSoares3 I'm away from my computer, but listen again for the word "embarrassment."
It's there. 7:02@@ErickSoares3
I would have to disagree here - the criterion of embarrassment is used by a broad range of scholars (for example it was one of the chief criterions endorsed by the Jesus Seminar). It is also be used by believing Christian scholars (some of whom may misuse it) to shore up the authenticity of certain passages, but this alone does not invalidate it as there is wide scholarly backing for the approach. It cannot and should not however take primacy over other criterion and must instead be used in concert with them to develop a nuanced portrait.
As you mentioned however, it is not without its flaws and shortcomings - all the criterion have some issues inherent in their application and unfortunately the nature of the evidence always invokes a degree of subjectivity that can lead to vastly different portraits of Jesus.
I agree!
14:05-14:20 HAHAHHA based historian moment.
I try not to editorialize too much but this is a position I can state unequivocally doesn't merit any respect - its fundamentally incoherent and an assault on the practice of history itself.
There's plenty we don't know about the ancient past and I will hold to views that are in the minority on some issues myself - but the historicity of Jesus is as open and shut as anything can be from this era.
PhD Scholars that believe the Gospel Jesus never existed; Thomas L. Brodie, (His 2012 book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Thomas L. Thompson, Robert M Price, Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, George Albert Wells, (1975 book, Did Jesus Exist?, Earl Doherty, John M. Allegro, Alvar Ellegård, Archibald Robertson, Albert Schweitzer, On the Historicity of Jesus: by Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, Gerd Lüdemann, his book Paul, the founder of Christianity, Philip R. Davies, R. Joseph Hoffmann, Dan Barker, his book From Preacher to Atheist, John E. Remsburg, his book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, H.H. Mangasarian, his book, "The Truth about Jesus, is he a Myth? among many others.
Jesus is believe not knowing.
In other words this video proves nothing. It is riddled with circular logic, blatant dismissal of anything that questions his existence as a real person and 'trust the experts' lunacy, even while admitting they don't know anything more than anyone else themselves, even admitting they 'infer' (aka make up without actual evidence) things
You directly contradict your own logic multiple times, dismissing anything you don't agree with from supposed sources while also claiming it wouldn't matter if the majority or all of the things being said were made up for whatever reason, completely ignoring the fact that would invalidate them as sources for anything in itself. The existence of contradictory statements about him, combined with a completely non existent amount of actual physical evidence is in itself a huge indication that he did not exist
Your 'sources' are nonsense. Nothing they say can be taken at face value or as evidence of anything. You're conveniently leaving out the fact that the majority of the people writing anything about him also claim he's literally the son of a god who magically ascended to a mythical heaven. In other words they're talking bs and any statements they make about him are based on bs. The christian writers have a reason to lie an to bs about things they were told by others as well as to believe the lies of others told to them, the romans had every reason to lie and none of them had even met him or seen any of the events first hand they were writing about. They were talking based on things other people had told them. as for famous historians and what they had to say about him, I suggest looking into their histories yourself. They frequently talked nonsense and flat out made things up on a fairly regular basis. Something such people have a long history of doing
Not to mention you're being incredibly self righteous, pedantic and ignorant
Bearded Jesus didn’t even appear until 350CE so Christians worship a “false idol” against 10 commandments 😂
Or as a danish history Magazine printed recently : Historians agree that he was jewish religious leader executed by the romans around the year 30 .
His existence and death by crucifixion are so well established that it's absurd to argue otherwise.
@@tribunateSPQR excatly Sir that is very true .
*or as a danish history Magazine printed recently* What Danish magazine was that? I could easily counter with an entire issue of National Geographic devoted to searching for the historicity of Jesus and admitting they failed to find any evidence. *Historians agree that he was jewish religious leader executed by the romans around the year 30* I'd like to know where they got this date from. Because not even the bible says when he was executed. 😎
@@druidriley3163 Not even Bible says he was executed... I think you didn't read Bible then.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *Not even Bible says he was executed" I think you didn't read Bible then* I think you didn't read my post. Go back and read my post again because I said "Because not even the bible says _when_ he was executed."
You should do another one where you actually show all the evidence and shove it in their skeptical faces! You probably just ran out of time. Next time...
It's the same old, same old. Yes Jesus existed but was he supernatural ?. I think not, but he was a uniquely inspirational man.
as long as you don reject his historicity, youre fine lol
@@ShunM-vr6mt I suppose so but it's not really that important.
Jesus existed in the form of 5 or 6 guys:
1) Jesus ben Ananias (preacher in Jerusalem from 62 to 69 CE)
2) Jesus ben Damneus (High Priest in 62 CE)
3) Jesus ben Sapphias (leader of fishermen and beggars in Galillee in 66/67 CE)
4) Jesus ben Pantera (Talmud and Celsus)
5) The Egyptian (in the time of Feliz, around 55 CE)
6) Jesus, the Nazorean (time of Pilate, around 30 CE)
Apparently, Jesus, the Nazorean, was the chosen avatar by Christians. In the Nicean/Constantinoplan creed they made compulsory to believe that Jesus was crucified by Pilate
If you’re sa theses Christian doctrines came out of Nicaea then you would have to ignore ancient Christian writings around the middle first century and the late second century
Which would be @@kaianuvaldivia
There are evidence of the gospels saying that Christ was crucified hundreds of years before the council of Nicaea.
@@xdaantihero Theophilus of Antioch, justin martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Tertullian, and etc. you can also watch a past live stream with Jay Dyer and Michael Jones where they go over apostolic fathers and their quotes about the Trinity.
@@kaianuvaldivia Every single last one of them existed after Jesus was crucified. They wasn't witnesses to him or his miracles, or his apostles. We don't know who wrote those gospels but we do know Paul's writings is the earliest so he's technically your father.
This presentation contains a statement that is objectively false: "No scholars with relevant credentials today advance the claim that Jesus was a purely mythological figure." Richard Carrier has a PhD in Ancient History and has published a peer reviewed work ""On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" These are verifiable objective facts. The presenter certainly has the right to his opinions but to deny reality is unprofessional as well as delusional and thus negates the content of his presentation. He needs to deal with the actual arguments not straw men.
I'm aware of Carrier but was hesitant to apply the "scholar" label to him as he holds no university position and his work is treated with disdain by the field at large. It's very funny to describe his work as "peer reviewed" as if this lends credibility when all the reviews slam him for shoddy work that relies on wishful thinking more than evidence.
You may feel that I presented mythicism as a straw man but that's simply because there is no coherent way t present the theory. It breaks down immediately on contact with reality
How about Raphael Lataster, PhD, University of Sydney, adjunct professor? He is the author of "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus" also peer reviewed but I am sure you will find something wrong with him too. I have entitled your theory of peer review, "Peer Review Nullification." @@tribunateSPQR
@@tribunateSPQR *his work is treated with disdain by the field at large* His book was well-received by critics, so I think you have a little self--delusion going on there. And since when is a university position telling of someone's scholarly abilities? If he can make enough money on his own works, why would he need to work for a university when he can be an independent scholar?
1 миллиард католиков верят, думаю сложно будет убедить их в обратном. Пора закрыть этот глупый вопрос. Спасибо за внимание .
There actually was never an objective account from a historian scientist before Richard Carrier "on the historicity of Jesus". Expect each statement about this matter connected with all the historical material to be found. The result is not conclusive (as it shouldn't be), more there is chance one in three that Jesus was a real person.
I suppose we are very lucky then that a guy 2000 years after the fact was the first to be able to write an objective history. Wonder why he can't get a university job...
It's easy to do an internet search on mythicist proponents and find a list of people who -- long before Carrier - challenged the historicity of Jesus.
*Wonder why he can't get a university job* Does he need one? His book writing allows him to make a living. You sound jealous. How's your university job going?
@@tribunateSPQR You can't expect on objective study from a professor who has tenure at a bible university. The study of Richard Carrier was sponsored by independent people. His credentials are impeccable and as for now there is no rebuttal in sight for this exhaustively researched monumental work. The least we can say that studies done by people that have a job at bible Universities can't be objective, their income depend on it.
@@albertmagician8613 Are you aware that the a large share of the scholars who study the new testament are not associated with any religious institution? Furthermore, the vast majority of scholars that study classical antiquity are not believing christians and hold positions at secular universities.
It's also preposterous to imply that Carrier's work has never been rebutted - it shows that not only do you not have any interaction with the recent scholarly literature, you don't even know how to use Google. Carrier has been extensively refuted by scholars from across the spectrum of religious belief and non-belief.
I'll leave you with a highly accessible piece of commentary from agnostic atheist Bart Ehrman: ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
Fictional character created by the Roman Empire!
Wow, this video is so full of inaccuracies and just plain wrong information. Definitely sounds like it’s made by someone trying to prove Jesus. It’s definitely not a scholastic account.
The Alexander biography cites its sources, whereas the gospels do not. Hardly an equal comparison
Hardly a point worth mentioning. That means Alexander did not exist.
@@gregoryfilin8040 No, it means that the comparison in this video (between the date the gospels were written and the time gap between Alexander and the biography) is not a useful one and should be disregarded.
How did you interpret my point to mean that Alexander did not exist?
@@MatthewCaunsfield Logical extrapolation of your standards outwards towards all historical figures. I'm merely pushing your idea to its logical conclusion and end goal.
@@gregoryfilin8040 Not how the example was used in this video.
That's the trouble when strawman arguments are used, and this was far from the only one
Jesus was a Capricorn.
Biblical words and names are Farsi/Persian, some are listed below:
The word "God" is coming from "Good" and good comes from Farsi word " خوب - Khoob " and khoob comes from " خاک او - khaake-uo " and khaake-uo comes from " خاک - khaak " which means "Soil" or "Earth". The word "Khaak" is a natural and organic word/language/sound which is coming from the sound our mouth makes when ejecting/spitting out the dirt that has entered our mouth, it was used by mothers to teach children what to eat (enter their mouth) and whatnot.
Deus and Dios are Farsi words "Darius" or "Cyrus [the Great"].
Hashem is " آهن شمش - aahan-shemsh " means "Iron Ingot" from Iran/Iron.
Allah is " آهن آلات - aahan-aalat " means "Iron Tools / Metal Tools".
Sallallahou Alayhe Wasallam, Arabic " صلي الله عليه وسلم " is " سرب و آهن و حلبی و مس زرد رنگ - sorbo-ahano-halabi-va-mese-zard-rang " which means "Lead, iron, tin and yellow copper".
Allah o akbar is " آهنآلات خاک کن - aahan-alate-khak-kan " means "Iron tools to dig the ground" like Picks and Shovels.
Mosses " مس ساز or مس دزد - mes-saz OR mes-dozd " means "coppersmith or copper thief"
Jew "جا - jaa" = Room / Home / Shed
Jesus "جا ساز - jaa-saaz" = Home builder
Christ "کار است, کار دست - kaar-ast/kare-dast" = The work we do using our hands to build a home, determines the ownership of that house
Genocide "جا نساز - jaa-na-saaz" = Do not build home
Genesis "جا نسازید - jaa-na-saazeed" = Do not build house (purell for genocide)
Gabrael "این جا بروید - jaa-beraveed" = Leave this home, executor of eviction
Palestine "پا و دستان - paa-va-dastan" = Legs and hands, [construction] workers
Disciple "دست پرکار or دست و پا دار - dast-o-paadar" = Having [skilled] hands for work Joseph "جا زاد - jaa-zaad" = The male who was born in that home Jouda "جا دار - jaa-daar" = One with home, not homeless
John "جای من - jaa-ye-man" = My home [in the future] Judea "جادارها - jaa-daarha" = Those who have house (opposite of homeless)
Moshe "مال من میشه - maale-man-mysheh" = It will be mine Judaism "جا دزدیست - jaa-dozdist" = Home/land thief
Magi "مانده جا - mandeh-jaa" = The man who knows the owner of the home and land
Maryam "مادرم - maadaram" = My mother, being a mother
Mary "مادری - maadary" = Motherhood, a girl who is expected to be a mother (roots for marriage, madam, Ms and Mrs)
Jahad "جا بخواه - jaa-bekhah" = Demand for having a home (not an enslaved on someone else's land)
Salvation "بساز و بشین - besaz-o-beneshin" = To live in your own built house and living in there
Babylon "برابرن - bara-baran" = Equals, people who shared the land equally amongst themselves
Malachi "مالکان - malekan" = Landlords, owners of the houses.
Pagan " پاره گان - paregan" = Those girls who lost their virginity
Sodom [and] Gomorrah " سردمه گرمم کن - sardameh-garmam-kon" = I am cold, warm me up, It was used by prostitutes
At that time there were no postal addresses, people used to put their name or their statue to claim the occupation of the home, like "Hassan's Home" so every name was followed by the word " jaa", later the tribe of yahoodies claimed the word "jaa" as their names to claim all the properties. Noah also picked the name "river" so they can also claim ownership of all the water bodies on land. Jesus also invented the Nail and Cross Joint to be used to build homes.
Trinity is a Farsi word " سه گانگی - se-ghanegy " which means "[concept of] three [owners]".
Father is the builder and the original owner of the house [there was no divorce and the mothers were automatically co owners with fathers),
Sons will inherit the property to protect the mother and other siblings when the father is too old or is dead. Daughters were getting married and co-owned their husband's property.
The Holy is " خالی - khali '' which means when the property is vacant and the word Spirit is " از بین رفت - az-bain-raft " which means building that is in ruins or was destroyed, in this state the Church will take ownership of the property and use it for single women, children and elders with no support.
In the Concept of Trinity, God is the landlord.
The Trinity was the base of the entire Christian and Western Civilization.
The Council of Nicaea formalized Trinity as the official rule of the land and Constantin centralized and unified registering the properties (issuing deeds) and recording their owners' names, to that date registering and recording was done by local real estate agents and escrow companies of the time dominated by jews who were abusing and trafficking and abusing women and children who needed food and home.
Virgin Mary means that Mary the mother of Jesus was a Virgin when married to Joseph, her virginity entitled her and Joseph to the ownership of the land and ability to pass the home to their son Jesus.
The word Mashiach is a Farsi word " مال تو میشه - male-to-myshe " which means "It [Jerusalem] will be yours", if someone can prove that jews are the owner of Jerusalem then your war will be over. Mashiach is the same Arabic word as " ماشاالله " and Muslim use it often, it means that by working hard and doing a good job you will own your nice property.
David is " دربان - darban " means "doorman/security guard/door keeper".
[Mashiach] Ben David is " بی دربان - bee-darban " which means "no need for a doorman".
Messiah is " مصالح - massaleh " = [construction] material, later it became " مسیر یاب - masser-yaab " which means path/direction/way Finder.
Nazareth " نوزادگاه - nozadgah " which means Newborn nursery, Labor and delivery hospital and birth certificate registration [for legit children of married couples]
Synagogue is " زن زادن جا - zan-zadan-ja " means where women can deliver baby, it was for delivering fatherless children and the children of rape victims or performing abortion. Delivered children were kept and were turned into slave soldiers, workers and the girls into sex slaves. Boys were tagged as slaved by tattoos and the girls by ear piercing.
Ark of Covenant are Farsi words " آهنکن گاو نر - aahankan-gave-nar '' which means "Iron for Bull Cow" or "Plowshare". The wings are the accessories required to mount the plow. This was the shared/rental plow for the community and it was designed by Persians who extracted Iron from Iron ore for the first time, the name Iran is the same " آهن کار/ آهن دار - aahan-kar " means Black Smith" or "Those who have Iron".
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics could believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
t. A person who couldn't prove the Earth is round on their own power.
Great analysis! 👌🏻Love confidence and directness! ❤🔥❤🔥❤🔥I recently watched video when some academic was talking about Jesus in historical context - the amount of initial backlash that video got and mean comments like "Will they gonna talk about Santa Claus next time" were truly bizzare to me. I was aware of mythicism theory, but I would never guess how much it is prevalent and how much people are blinded by anti-religious attitude to ignore all historical context. 🤦🏻♂
Thank you! There are of course many different historical interpretations of Jesus and scholars have constructed a wide range of portraits depending on how they weigh certain aspects of the evidence. From a historical perspective, all of this is valid.
But mythicism is fringe and really just relegated to internet nobodies because to throw out the astounding evidence for his existence is so absurd that no scholar would ever make that assertion. It's a shame that loudmouths on the internet are so far behind scholarship that they're ignorant of just how isolated they are
Mythcism is not fringe. Most all secular scholars are mythicists, they just don't call themselves that. e.g. they say that Jesus _probably_ existed, but they mean a man, not the Jesus of the bible, which then moots the entire point if a man named Yeshua (the John Smith of 1st century Judea) lived but didn't do anything the bible says he did. Or they say the bible Jesus is a composite character made up of several different wandering messiahs at the time. IOW, not a real person. IOW, a myth.
@@druidriley3163 It absolutely IS fringe. 'but they mean a man, not the Jesus of the bible, which then moots the entire point if a man named Yeshua (the John Smith of 1st century Judea) lived but didn't do anything the bible says he did. ' - NONE is saying that Jesus didn't do ANYTHING what Bible says. However we cannot confirm how much Jesus did so the only certain fact remains his death by cross.
'Yeshua (the John Smith of 1st century Judea) ' - No - not 'just Yeshua'. Yeshua of Nazareth, son of Mary, stepson of Jospeh, maternal half-brother (or cousin) to James, Jospeh, Simon, Judah and two girls. If Jesus was 'composite character', I wonder why most sources give him exact same family members.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *NONE is saying that Jesus didn't do ANYTHING what Bible says. However we cannot confirm how much Jesus did so the only certain fact remains his death by cross* But they can't prove it. And not all scholars say this. Some say Jesus of the bible was a composite figure, created from several wanna-be messiahs running around at the time. Which means 1) Jesus of the bible didn't exist and 2) there were a bunch of Yeshuas running around in 1st century Judea. No argument against any of those.
This is a pretty bad video. Instead of blathering about the untenability of the mythicist position on a general basis, you should go through the actual evidence there is that he was a historical person and also explain the methodology used to sift out the true elements. You need reliable primary sources, all else is irrelevant. There are a few independent sources of Jesus's existence.
That's the problem with just going through the actual evidence. It's the assumptions of what should be considered that matter. In ancient history, if we ignore all but "reliable primary sources", we lose nearly everything except bits of archeological evidence. Especially if we rule out sources that are likely to be biased - like for example any contemporary writing about an emperor or a student like Plato writing about a teacher.
Primary sources are great when they exist, but antiquity is so poorly documented that very often even for great rulers, the only real information comes from histories or biographies written generations later.
It's Surprising that The Historians like Josephus, Pliny and other who are from the first century, Has Not written much on Jesus's life, his miraculous birth, Crucifixion and So called Resurrection.. except Few lines
No serious scholar uses the "criteria" anymore in the quest for the historical Jesus.
Keep up with scholarship instead of uttering nonsense.
Not was. IS!!!
One word: Midrash.
Great point - I should have mentioned that the existence of Jesus is well attested in Jewish literature of the period even as they reject Christian claims about him. My expertise is more on the roman sources (which are also abundant) so I unintentionally passed over a strong piece of evidence.
Not that this would have done much good with the bizarre comments I'm getting from internet types desperate to see Jesus as ahistorical
a
We know he existed. What we also know that didn't exist was a Jesus that came back from the dead, cured the sick with touch and reached apotheosis.
I guess you guys have yet to learn to accept that one simply does not argue with Internet people. People believe what they want to believe, it's as simple as that. Neither side will ever convince anyone of anything - its an entirely pointless endeavour. Even more so when there actually is a clearly established consensus. Just go with the flow 😉
The internet definitely isn’t the best place for reasoned dialogue
I argue frequently with mythicists all the time.
On principle, I believe bad reasoning should always be countered. I’m not always trying to convince the person I argue with, but any undecided people that stumble upon the comments section.
If you make it easy for people to write crap (by not challenging it), then more people are likely to believe it.
Jesus was God! The evidence is true!
I am a Christian, and no one can make me otherwise...i dont care what secular academics say or believe...i know my redeemer live and he is alive and ressurected and will come again to rule the world...😊
Enormously arrogant manner of reasoning.
Nice cop out, the difficulty is the nature of their existence
Well argued - shame about the trolls
Christus resurrexit!
Alright, alright, Jesus existed! Jesus! Was not resurrected tho
That is a view perfectly in line with the historical record. His existence doesn't imply anything supernatural. To believe so is pretty much what makes one a Christian.
There's proof of the Resurrection and it's in Turin right now. It wasn't debunked in 1988, that debunking attempt was scientifically botched and was later updated with proof of authenticity.
I like this channel for careful research and insightful historical analysis. But this is more dodgy work. I agree that, on the whole, the most plausible position is that Jesus was a historical figure. But claiming that it is an absolute certainty is unwarranted and implausible. It even contradicts your analysis that explicitly relies on the claim that we should expect a paucity of hard evidence for someone in the era who did not belong to the social elite. How does that not leave at least some room for scepticism? But the most puzzling point is the parallel you draw with Caligula. It is true that we know the details of his life and reign from hostile historians writing decades later. But we have coins minted during his reign, for crying out loud! And the remnants of his famed 'round ship' that Pliny mentions were found in Italy in the 20th century. (The ruins are dated to 37 CE.) is your analogy is supposed to work here exactly? This is corroboration of a detail from an ancient historian that has no parallels in Jesus's case.
It's totally obvious the creator of this video believes and has FAITH in Christianity.
What makes it obvious?
Think like mythicist :
About the Dalaï Lama, the 2 options are : A. He is the genuine reincarnation of the Buddha. B. He doesn't exist at all.
Or : You believe Adolf Hitler was a real person?? You must be a Nazi yourself !!
No. There is no evidence whatsoever to claim that ‘Jesus’ to have ever existed. There is nothing Christianity can do to make mythology fact.
Biased. And you even admit it.
Hardly? I'm no Christian, but there is an incredible amount of evidence to indicate Jesus existed. Histories were not written then as they are now, so every source is biased. It's about determining what bias is likely to exaggerate and what is likely to be factual. There are several things we can conclude about Jesus' life, and there is also a lot we cannot know.
@@theviper1999uk What evidence? What can you conclude about Jesus's life?
@@DocKinne Those are things we can conclude: Jesus was Jewish man from 1st century AD, who was wandering preacher and at some point in his 30s he lost his life during Pilate residence in Judea, and Jesus's followers were still spreading his teachings. He had male kin called James who was bishop in Jerusalem - presumably his younger maternal half-brother - he was son of woman named Mary and paternity of his legal father was questioned. He also at some point met John of Baptist (his maternal cousin accoridng the Bible) and probably took baptism from him. Not to much, but pretty enough.
Caesar's Messiah is a 2005 book by Joseph Atwill that argues that the New Testament Gospels were written by a group of individuals connected to the Flavian family of Roman emperors: Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. The authors were mainly Flavius Josephus, Berenice, and Tiberius Julius Alexander, with contributions from Pliny the Elder. Although Vespasian and Titus had defeated Jewish nationalist Zealots in the First Jewish-Roman War of 70 AD, the emperors wanted to control the spread of Judaism and moderate its political virulence and continuing militancy against Rome. Christianity, a pacifist and pro-Roman authority religion, was their solution.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory
so they decided to persecute their "state religion" for a few hundred years first just for lolz?
This would mean Roman elites forfeiting their Temples, schools, science, medicine, and engineering, throughout the empire, all this to prevent another Jewish uprising in an insignificant province?
@@andrewpritt8739sounds like factual history.
Bingo.
There is ONE (1) source for Jesus existing. Actual historians require multiple INDEPENDENT sources for an actual person.
From 1st century we have: 4 canonical gospels, multiple letters, Acts, Jospehus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Talmud texts and letter of man called Mara bar Serapion that alludes to Jesus (he mentioned very much alive teaching of Jewish King who died on the cross - and only two men with that title died this way are Jesus and Antigonus; Antignous was completely frogotten by the end of 1st century). Gospels and other Christian sources were all made independently - there were different author behind each.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *From 1st century we have: 4 canonical gospels* None of which are contemporary to the time of Jesus. None of which claim to be eyewitness accounts, and they're all copies of each other, not independent accounts. *multiple letters* No letters dated from the time of Jesus. *Acts* written around the same time as the book of Luke, probably by the same person, and the book of Luke is dated anywhere from 75 ce to 93 ce. Again, not contemporary to the time of Jesus. *Jospehus* Not born at the time Jesus supposedly lived. Writing nearly 70 years later, and his Testimonium Flavinium is mostly considered an interpolation by later Christians. He didn't write it. *Tacitus* also not born when Jesus supposedly lived. Writing nearly 100 years after the time of Jesus, he only wrote what Christians of his time believed. That's not evidence. *Suetonius* also not born when Jesus supposdly lived only mentions a Chrestus stirring trouble in Rome during the time of Claudius. He's _obviously_ not talking about Jesus *Talmud texts* written nearly a century and a half after the time of Jesus. Not evidence. *letter of man called Mara bar Serapion* Who never mentioned Jesus or even wrote the name Jesus. Christians just _assume_ he's talking about Jesus.
So you've not named a single contemporary source.
@@druidriley3163 Doesn't matter if this is from his lifetime. It is the SAME century. 'They're all copies of each other, not independent accounts.' - We already talked about this: John is NOT copy of synoptic gospels. And synpotic gspels are not copies either - Luke adn Matthew have similarities with Mark, but there are also differences, suggesting existence of some other indpendent source. THINK - if they would all be 'copies', we would have ONE sinoptic gospel, not three.
'Again, not contemporary to the time of Jesus.' - It is contemporary to people who lived when Jesus was still alive. Jesus story didn't die with him, there were many living witnesses, some of them very young.
@@druidriley3163 'Writing nearly 70 years later, and his Testimonium Flavinium is mostly considered an interpolation by later Christians. He didn't write it. ' - Lie again. Testimonium is PARTIAL interpolation.
Neither Jospehus and Tacitus are Christians, but none of them try cast doubt on Christians by claiming their source of inspration was fictional character.
'Talmud texts written nearly a century and a half after the time of Jesus' - Some talmud texts were written as early ads late 1st century.
' Christians just assume he's talking about Jesus.' - I already told this: about WHOM else he would talk about?
I mentioned multiple sources contemporary to Jesus' disciples. Yes, they are posthumous to him, but most were made during time when his witnesses were still alive.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 *Lie again. Testimonium is PARTIAL interpolation* So how was I lying? The interpolation is agreed upon, what is still up for debate is how much of it is interpolated. That still hasn't been decided. And since you didn't even know it had been in the first place you're not in any position to sling stones.
*Neither Jospehus and Tacitus are Christians,* No, one was pagan and one was Jewish. The pagan one was only repeating what Christians of his time believed. The Jewish one...he didn't believe in messiahs, if you read the rest of his writings.
*Some talmud texts were written as early ads late 1st century* Some and still not contemporary.
*I already told this: about WHOM else he would talk about* Did you read Josephus? There were at least half a dozen or so would-be messiahs running around during that time. Probably more. Serapion could have been talking about any of them.
*but most were made during time when his witnesses were still alive* Yet what are these witnesses names? Do you know?
Just give it a break .
Did you cite PLINY as evidence??? This video is strangely pious for such a channel.
A Jesus bin Joseph may have existed but every image of him is pure trope. White boy Jesus never existed in any sense anyway. That's what you missed in your straw man version of the critique.
History has been lied about a lot.
Probably not.
You should probably watch Zeitgeist. There’s absolutely no consensus among historians about his existence. Most “sources” are christians historians, so…
I know Wikipedia is not the be all end all of research, but it's always a good starting point. anyways, literally the second sentence in jesus' Wikipedia article reads: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically."
@@SimonDoercontrolled opposition.
Fact.
Zeitgeist is worse then this
@@kennybachman35capable of full sentence?
Nope
Here's a clue, there is NO evidence!
The 'Jesus Myth' crowd are so goddamn annoying. I of little faith have admittedly, unfortunately spent too much time addressing their inane arguments that would get them laughed out of any history or classical studies department in the country.
Yes and it doesn't help that so many are terminal debate lords who view the contempt of experts as a sign that they're actually on the right side
Religious studies are not taught in history or classical studies department. They're taught in religious programs. Interestingly, if any _Christian_ scholar deviates from the party line of Jesus being historical - they write about doubts and possibilities of forgeries - _they're_ the ones fired from their programs.
The question of myth or not is irrelevant until you state which Jesus figure you're talking about.
Possible that "a" Jesus, a preaching Jew, roamed the land of Galilee and gathered a following? Sure, why not.
Jesus was a common name in that area and there's plenty of attestation of travelling preachers/rabbi's.
However, "the" Jesus, the resurrected one, son of a god (or god himself?), to which many miraculous deeds, healings, etcetera are ascribed is more likely mythological than historical.
You can reject all the magical elements attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, as testified in the gospels, and still be left with a historical figure. THE Jesus of the gospels did, in fact, exist. He was baptized by John the Baptist, spoke in parables, thought he was the messiah, spoke of a coming kingdom, had 12 apostles, was betrayed, and was crucified.
@@ShunM-vr6mt All of this is based on what we state as "for so says the bible".
We only know from the gospel according to Mark that John the Baptist baptised him.
Everything this figure supposedly said (or even thought) comes from the gospels.
I can likewise strip Harry Potter from all his magical powers and dismiss Hogwarts and a magical world exist, and then state that what's left--a teenager living in England underneath a staircase--is historical. Yet we know that is not the case. So your methodology is at best unhelpful.
The broader point is that it may be possible that a Jewish preacher existed, that he upset Roman rule and the civitas tranquili and was subsequently executed.
Hower, "possible" doesn't get us to probable, let alone accepted as historical fact.
There is simply a general lack of verifiable (archeological) evidence and independent attestation that holds to the requirement of provenance.
Tacitus mentions a person who his followers call the christ was crucified. However, Tacitus doesn't mention his sources, something he usually does. So it is more likely that he got such "info" or "hearsay" from early christians. That does not rise to the standard of independent attestation. Historians don't work that way.
Conclusion: until real material evidence turns up, we'll never know, and just like a plethora of "historical" figures he'll remain historical speculation.
Great presentation and it's surprising to see so much pushback in the comments for these noncontroversial claims. If you argued a specific interpretation of the historical jesus I could understand there being a stronger reaction but not to the simple claim that a man existed
in the right timing the right people come out of the woodworks
what claims? He doesn't even present an argument for historicity outside the gospels. This is a terrible history video. A shame, because he could have done a proper one, and instead went for a sunday class diatribe. Shame.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT The fact you liken this to sunday school kinda lays bare exactly why you hold the position you hold, namely that you have a problem with the religion of Christianity.
@@usergiodmsilva1983PT you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, but maybe when he is thirsty enough, he will open his eyes and see a stream flowing in front of him
"Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." Gospel of John, chapter 4.
Many lives have been changed over the past 2000 years because of a "myth". Headhunters gave up their ancestral violence, cannibals changed their menu, Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion still used today by NASA, while looking for the star of Bethlehem, and countries (like the USA) were founded just for the freedom to worship Him.
Cold case detective J.Warner Wallace tried to prove the myth theory to his wife using all of his cold case detective skills, and he now has dedicated his life to letting the world know the result of his investigation; Jesus lived, and the Gospels are eye witness accounts.
Even if a mythology develops over time for an historical figure, that does not mean that the historical figure was just a complete myth entirely.
Correct. We tell the “cherry tree” story about George Washington, but this doesn’t invalidate the existence of the man himself
@@tribunateSPQR Well said!
But it makes historical existence of the person a moot point. If there was a man named Yeshua in 1st century Judea (there were probably dozens, the name was so common), but he didn't do anything the bible says he did, what difference does it make if he was historical?
@@druidriley3163 Sure. Just because someone by the name of Yeshua is mentioned in an ancient document doesn't mean he was THE Yeshua (Jesus of the New Testament).
No, they deny his existence entirely.