That whole "of course he was crucified was would they make that up" should have u on the fence. This person is clearly biased. I mean by that account if we asked her "Should we kill gay men" (Leviticus 20:13) she would say "Of course, why would they make that up?" If we asked "If a woman is not betrothed and get raped; should her rapist go to jail or just marry the victim?" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) she would say "Of course the rape victim has no say and needs to marry her rapist, I mean... why would they make that up?" Her logic and reasoning is faulty, circular and highly biased. This is clearly an member of the christian faith, trying to insert some historical worth and therefore some validity to a non-sensical belief system that is full of contradictions and immoral practices. Pls be more critical
The Life of Brian is probably more accurate in the actual rise of the cult of Jesus and Christianity than any believer would ever want to contemplate. Comedy gold indeed. It's one of the funniest movies ever made.
@@jdjones4825 Ya but it was 2000 years ago so that's really our evidence that any ancient historical figures existed some historian wrote is down some time, Jesus probably existed his 12 apostles went in pairs in 6 different directions some to India some to Rome some to Ethiopia 40 years after jesus's death the first gosepsl were written by the apostles followers writing down what they'd said so it's not just this one guy paul it's 12, also it would be a bit bizare if they made the whole thing up as a joke said it to people who didn't take kindly to it got martyred and then 2000 years later it's the worlds leading religion
@@smoutube1197we don't know if the deciples scriptures are legitimate and even if they are I think once the paul edits occurred the Christian branch of Judaism was eternally "bastardised" from its original free flowing sentiments..
It would have been nice if the hundreds of other men the Romans had killed because they claimed to be the 'Messiah' prior to the Jesus death had been examined. I've read elsewhere that it's at least 200. That's a lot of very naughty boys.
I was born into a Christian family, but no longer consider myself a member of the faith. I find the historiography of Christianity so fascinating. Always a pleasure to hear Professor Bond speak on the subject.
Really? She's so chock full of utter gibberish I can't cope and I've watch 11seconds and had to stop There is no one in history better attested: pliny the younger, Suetonius, Josephus, plus about 20 others independently attest Jesus. We know the sermons preached in corinth. from 17 years after the crucifixion. She's just a nut job with a badge mate
Notably, there are scant documents that date back centuries that support the claims made about the majority of historical figures from that era. She is not claiming that he is divinely born, as Alexander the Great was supposedly born to Zeus; rather, she is stating that the evidence for his existence is consistent with accepted historical accounts.
There are no historical accounts. A couple of guys a generation or two afterwards who claim to be his inheritors of authority are hardly unbiased sources
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I completely disagree. There is enough in the New Testament that are not fanciful stories of miracles etc to believe these are actual people. As mentioned, the best evidence is the crucifixion in that it would make no sense to make up a religion on that basis. There is plenty of other very good circumstantial reasons to mean the default is that he was real. Whether we know a single thing about him other than that he was crucified is another matter entirely.
Judging from the comments, I feel that most people would be surprised by how little evidence we have about historical figures and their life and works at that time period. Even with major historical figures like Alexander The Great. Most of what we know about him come from Arrian who lived hundreds of year after Alexanders death.
With Alexander the Great one can theorize his presence by the archeological data of torched cities and the physical evidence of the bodies left from his battles. Physical evidence for his existence? None at this time.
And that's the thing isn't it. So many of our most trusted sources for figures of antiquity are generations removed from said figures, or they're outright unreliable. Take Suetonius for example, who gave us various accounts of notable Roman figures. He had access to archives that many scholars did not and thus can be viewed as a trusted source, but he also loved the more salacious rumours of those figures and thus can at times be viewed as the TMZ of antiquity.
Loving the rational and well-informed debate in the comments where everyone apparently possesses more historical knowledge about biblical times than an actual professor at the University of Edinburgh... Well done you. You really "got" whoever it was you think you're getting.
You do know that there are only so many books on this subject and anybody can read them and have an opinion about them just as valid as this professor. Most are on the internet.
@@paulryan5150 OK, but being a professor is way above the level of "reading all the books". She spends her life attending conferences, reading academic papers from all over the world, doing original research in museums, writing papers, which are then peer reviewed. She'll be up-to-date on all the latest ideas and will be expected to have an informed opinion on them and she'll also be asked to review them. She's probably able to read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. She's been doing this for decades. She might even have to do some teaching! If you're not an academic, you don't have access to this world.
I wish this was more in-depth and she presented the actual evidence for the claims she makes. You could do an entire hour long video on the evidence that Jesus dressed like a Roman and had short hair. I'd be interested in that.
Just wanted to remind all the smug armchair experts in the comments here that most historians think Jesus was real. If he was the son of God is another matter entirely. The evidence for Jesus is better than most historical figures who's existence no one denies.
As an atheist, I despair at the levels some people go to to assert he didn't exist. It is pure wishful thinking. If you use Occam's razor, it is far far more likely that a ten-a-penny preacher was crucified and then his supporters spun the story in a way that resonated with people, than the idea that a group of people purposely invented a logically inconsistent story based around a guy being crucified. It literally makes no sense.
I'd like to remind you that history is not a political numbers game, and everything not written AT THE TIME is not valid evidence of anything, but gossip and spin.
It's worth pointing out that most historical figures from that period are based on very few sources dating centuries after their death. She's not saying he's the son of God, like how Alexander the great was considered the son of Zeus, just that the evidence that he existed stands up to standard historical scrutiny
He existed just as much as the other thousands of guys named jesus existed. Throw in a bunch of writers and storytellers (with various agendas) and you've got entertaining fairy tales at the very least.
@@steveofthewildnorth7493no, actually, we don’t. Fortunately most people aren’t ideologically obsessed atheists who want to contort history to suit their own purposes.
@@steveofthewildnorth7493 Xtian apologists do but critical biblical scholars who do scholarship based on evidence do think a traveling apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jesus was around at the time and had a following. It obviously does not mean Christian teachings themselves are true, just that he was probably a guy who existed. Look up "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?" by Dan McClellan on RU-vid.
Jesus also loved cats. Specifically Persian cats. He had 3 of them. He named them Mary and Joe after his parents, and lastly Curly. Curly was heavier than the other two cats.
09:55 There might not be any evidence to confirm this as such, but I imagine that if a deep dive was done to see how often the Bible or other records show how often he closed a door when leaving a room, we could make a fair assumption as to yes or no. I have not been a believer since I was 12, but growing up I can safely recall never hearing tell of him closing a door. That would lead me to assume that yes, he was in fact born in a barn had he existed. Which, I'm happy to accept he was a real person.
As a Christian this is so fascinating to listen to. The newer shows and movies are trying to portray Jesus in a real-world manner and style, so it’s great to hear a historian give a knowledgeable and lifelike?? Piecing together of what like during Jesus might have been like.
15:40 Yes, Pilate was 100% real. The Israel Museum in Jerusalem contains the Pilate Stone, which contains a partially intact inscription mentioning Pilate by name. The stone is consistent with what we know of Pilate's life from textual sources, so yes, we know Pilate definitely existed. 20:30 Jesus was also a major figure in the (now nearly-extinct) former major world religion of Manichaeism.
Though I didn't know about the Pilate ring, I was surprised that the professor made no mention of the Pilate Stone, the single most famous archaeological attestation of the historicity of Pilate.
Josephus was born decades after Jesus alleged death, Jesus didn't appear in Josephus's first history ,but only in his second history which overlapped dates, Josephus's 2nd history followed the Roman propaganda of the time which Josephus was personally beholden to.
Josephus is a later Greek source widely debunked in actual scholarship. It's generally the bible bashers who tout Josephus about, usually misquoting him and giving him more credit than deserved
@@infozencentre No, Josephus was a Jewish historian that apologists hate since he exposes lots of blunders in Luke-Acts as he had access to actual Roman records since he was close with the Flavians.
@@infozencentre Jospehus was Jewish not Greek and he wasn't debunked. He is widely regarded as non-Christian source on Jesus, though it is agreed his fragment was subject to some inetroplation.
OMG!! I love "biblical time machine"! Didnt realize who it was until I heard her voice - fully recommend the podcast, even as an agnostic. Great fun time
Its interesting because the New Testament states Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. However, that crime was punishable by stoning. The crime of crucifixion was reserved for inciting rebellion or insurrection against the Roman state.
The Jews were not allowed to administer capital punishment under the Romans. The gospels say that the Jews incited Pilate and the Romans to crucify him by charging him rebellion against Rome.
Blasphemy was the temple authorities acussation. But he was presented as a rebell against Rome to Pilatos. That Is why pilatos first really doesnt care, and the reason jesus Is mocked as a false king of the jews. A messiah Is both a religious and polítical figure.
Another way you can read this from the eyes of Apostle Paul is that although you are right that he shouldn’t have been hanged on a tree for blasphemy, God purposefully made it so so he can rightfully redeem us from the curse of the law as it is written in Galatians 3:13 - ”Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus” Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says “a hanged man is cursed by God”.
I understand the argument that Jesus was not the first Christian, but I am unsure about the assertion that Christianity did not emerge as a separate religion from Judaism until much later, even after Paul. I thought that Paul argued that gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism to be accepted into the Kingdom of God. My understanding is that Paul argued with Peter and James (Jesus' brother) that gentiles did not need to adhere to the Jewish laws about food (and presumably circumcision, but I am less sure about this). If that is the case, then it seems to me that Paul was founding a separate religion from Judaism even if he didn't call it Christianity. Have I misunderstood Paul's writings? I would very much appreciate Prof Bond's clarification. Thank you.
There were many different forms of Christianity at that time. 'Heresy:Jesus Christ and the other Sons of God'by Catherine Nixey is a very good book on the subject.
None of that makes any sense, because Christianity as we understand it, did not exist before the council of nicea 325 CE and the first evidence of AD dating ocurrs in the 6th century.
I can tell you that from a Roman perspective, Christians were seen as a Jewish sect until the reign of Vespasian in 70 AD. This indicates that most Christians at the time looked and acted like other Jews.
I suppose the question is when does something become a separate religion rather than a branch of a religion or some members of a religion that have slightly different views than the mainstream This happens all the time in Christianity and islam and judaism but we dont count them as separate religions
Pliny was some time after Jesus died, and what he refers to is the Christians that he was dealing with whilst Governer of Bithynia in 110 AD, and what you refer to is his letter to Trajan and how he was to deal with the Christian community from a judical point of biew. He never actually uses the name Jesus, but rather Christ ( and not identified as a person, and the term was "as to 'a' god" of which the Romans had many and allowed the belief of a huge amount of others. So Pliny can be used regarding the early christian movements spread but nothing about Jesus as a person or him ever existing in reality
ACTS 11:26, probably from the 80s, has followers of The Way first being called "Christians" at Antioch. It may have been intended to have a negative connotation.
I really enjoyed this post. Thanks Prof Bond & History Hits :) My question would have been -(probably impossible to answer) - was there any proof of a resurrection :)
Loved this one. I am a former protestant member that never really believed, but was always fascinated by Jesus. Hearing this kind of perspective is so refreshing and interesting.
@andreascj73 what is the point of your comment? I go online and make a positive comment, you don't know anything about me, and your instinct is to condescendly come on to point out something I already know? Just keep your mouth shut buddy, and move on.
@@mike9512 Nothing condescending in my comment. But this is common theological knowledge. It would have been the same if you were surprised by some common medical knowledge and thought it refreshing being a former football coach or something, and you were told by a doctor that it is common knowledge. Instinct? There is no instinct in replying to a comment, mate.
I have the feeling she missed the question at 13:20 "Did Herod try to kill Jesus?" the question probably was referring to Herod the Great's attempts to kill the newborn Jesus, i.e. the slaughter of the innocents. Is there historical evidence for that?
@@nankosa82 neither were Matthew, mark, Luke or John, but I bet you believe their accounts. Believe it or not, high ranking officials such as, yknow, kings, had their movements well documented
@@lizzieh5284 they did a census as recored in the birth of Jesus stories. Dont forget populations were less in those days and population growth was slower so census was not required as often.
@@lizzieh5284 The Census of Quirinius was a census of the Roman province of Judaea taken in 6 CE, upon its formation, by the governor of Roman Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. This is the one most likely to be the census recorded in the New Testament
@@williamfletcher5760 but in the bible it states that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem for a census. There is no record of this written by the Romans. 'Birth of Jesus stories' - exactly that 'stories'.
@@arturmangolim9385 ? There isn't a gospel that talks about it. It's an Ahmadi myth, isn't it? If your going to talk about the 2 fake Jesus graves in Jerusalem, why not mention the much more interesting Ahmadi version?
As someone who is very involved in the study of cults, it seems as though he was a kind of cult leader of his time with dedicated followers who believed he had healing powers.
@@barrymoore4470 I'm a little bit skeptical. nowadays we normally use the word cult to denote a religious movement that is isolating, polarizing, manipulating. members are not free to come and leave as they want, they have to cut ties to their families, they need to give money to the leader or perform unpaid labour etc.
@@gordonlekfors2708 Jesus enjoined his disciples and would-be followers to ignore their family ties and obligations (let the dead bury the dead being one example) in committing to their path with him. This would be consistent with modern notions of cult.
Wow this is very impressive . A history professor who is not afraid to tell the truth about Jesus instead of bowing to the masses and going with the “accepted “ truth
@@andrasszabo1570 Here's a phrase that is helpful in situations like you're describing. "I don't know" It's a quaint little phrase that trumps all probabilities and suppositions..
@@pirththeewhat? Are you saying it’s NOT probably true that Mohammed split the moon in half, Joseph Smith found gold plates and Olifat causes mischief in Micronesia? Well, as the first MusMormOliest, I can say that those things ABSOLUTELY, 100% happened*. *probably
What kills you when crucified? Is it that you bleed to death? Or do they also put a nail through your forehead, and it was simply decided not to depict that in the Christian iconography?
My understanding is it was usually suffocation. The longer you're up there the harder it is to support your own weight, eventually you hang by your arms and it becomes hard to breathe. You could also die from dehydration. I found it interesting the two images she showed had the nails through his hands, when they should be through his wrists. You can't hang by just the skin between your fingers, the nails would eventually rip through. In Jesus' case if he was only up there a few hours, he probably died from artistic interpretation.
I'm not sure regarding the nail to the forehead, but presuming that the crucification is in the form of the traditional cross. 1.) Hypovolemic shock: Having your radial arteries severed alongside other blood vessels will lead to a gradual loss in blood over time; whether or not it will be sufficient to lead to hypovolemic shock, where the heart no longer is able to adequately perfuse blood throughout your arteries and return them via veins, is unclear and likely varies based on the nail size as well as the location and trauma to the surrounding tissues. What is clear is that your entire body weight resting upon the nail will further damage tissue and help prevent clotting which would further blood loss. 2.) Exposure: being stripped naked, and slowly drained of blood or losing a significant volume of blood, as well as likely being malnourished and exposed to a.) nights and b.) winds would rapidly deplete your body of energy, and all of these factors would decrease the ability of your body to properly thermoregulate. You become hypothermic and your core body temperature gradually decreases until your heart has dysfunctions that leads to death, or you fail to oxygenate your tissues properly and functionally die of suffocation. 3.) Malnutrition and starvation and/or infection & septic shock. Jesus is presumed to have been stabbed by a spear, this injury is categorically what would have killed him, based on what I have been exposed to. Romans typically left the crucified alive, up there, for days on end until the elements take them. So considering the physical trauma, as well as the cyclic heating leading to dehydration and baking during the days and increasing fluid loss (thus worsening hypovolemia) and freezing at nights, leading to greater energy expenditures, your head once again gives out. If you happen to get an infection during this time period, you are severely immunocompromised and it could lead to septic shock, but I would bet money the other issues kill you first.
Well, there's Joshua in English, Jussi in Finnish, Giosue in Italian, Iosua in Romanian, aaand so on. Not Jesus exactly, but then according to the video, Jesus wasn't named Jesus either 😅
It's because in Spain in the 1500s there arose the last name ''De Jesus'' (which means ''Of Jesus'' in Spanish) This last name became very popular in Spain and so people in Spain got used to seeing ''Jesus'' in people's names. And so by the 1700s some people just started naming boys ''Jesus'' and it became a common name in Spain and other Spanish speaking places.
20:25 Jesus is also a prophet in Manichaeism. This religion also venerates the Buddha and the Zoroaster, and at one time it was the dominant religion in Persia, and it has at various points been practiced from Spain to China. Today it's on the verge of extinction after centuries of persecution and is only practiced in a few villages of China.
these extra canonical gospels, particularly the "Gospel" of Thomas were never "in" the Bible or referred to on any of the Biblical lists by Anthanasius or any of the early synods or later ones, any one. Thomas and these others were not actually Gospels but are spuriously referred to as such. Thomas is a Gnostic writing which is an early religion and became a Christian heresy. Elaine Pagels is the professor who so famously made something of the "gospel" not even heard of until 1945.
But that doesn’t answer if there is non religious record like government documents by the ruling party that had issues with him and wouldn’t there be execution documentation? Maybe I’m thinking too much into it since I’m not a Christian
This is really hard to look into because it's such a complex topic, but if historians agree there's no archaeological evidence for jesus, does that then mean any relics accepted as real by the Catholic church e.g thorns from the crown, pieces of the true cross, pieces of the spear that pierced his side are unquestionably fake?
Of course they are fake, all the “relics” can be dated to be too late to have come from Jesus’s time. It turns out, a thousand years later, people want to turn a different kind of profit. The historical person still existed regardless of what later people did with the story. I can sell you a piece of Socrates’ beard but that doesn’t negate his existence.
If something is from 1st century and Palestine there is always possibility that something was authethic - but it is impossible to prove it truly came from Jesus.
@@M-_-O there's really no way of proving that the historic person existed, we have gospel books written a long time after he would have died by people that couldn't have met him, no mention in any other texts, and we know that the jesus movement became a cause after his death and every cause needs a figurehead. We know that there were two versions of Christianity after his death, one that is considered closer to jesus' beliefs and lifestyle that was continued by his brother, and one that was a well marketed popular version that was the core of preaching and going out into the world that his followers put their efforts into and that caught on. I truly wouldn't be surprised if one of their group was executed by the Romans in this way but the belief system had been developed and inspired by them as a collective so there was no Jesus per se, Jesus was all of them but having a figurehead who died for the cause and was the miracle maker made it much more appealing to those they were converting. I watched a documentary some time ago about the rise of the jesus movement, I can't remember which apostle it was, maybe Paul, was an educated Greek with a great ability to preach and write very persuasively and he was integral to the movement becoming popular. I don't know if it's something you've researched or find interesting personally but I learned a lot from that particular rabbit hole. I suppose the reason I asked this was because there must be a fair few Christian scholars who are priests, and the Catholic Church is without exception adamant that those relics are all real which is why they're in churches and they do have the power to commune with God so you pray to them. In a nutshell it's me wondering how catholics operate as academics because there's such a contradiction between being informed by the evidence and being informed by belief and Catholic doctrine. I'd love to pick a religious scholars brain on that one, a scholar that is more objective so either atheist or at least doesn't subscribe to organised religion, I don't know if believing in God is an issue because believing in God doesn't necessarily mean believing in Jesus.
Correct me if I am wrong but Pilate had Jesus crucified because the Saducces and Pharisees along with Caiaphas wanted him killed and Jews weren't allowed to do that so they sent Jesus to Pilate to have him tried and crucified. So it wasn't just the Romans responsible for this act but also the Jewish authorities who felt threatened by Jesus's teachings.
That's how the gospels tell it, but they're a biased source. The other sources we have just don't give details about it - Josephus just says there was a preacher called Jesus who got executed. (and had a big following that didn't dissolve after his death.) The general idea that the politically powerful folks in the area didn't want him starting a revolt does make sense, though.
They could have him put to death for blasphemy, ie stoned to death, but as he seemingly avoided that, then they used first Herods and then Pilates fear of insurrection to have him dealt with under civil law rather than religous law. Judea and the whole of the Levant was a powder keg, and Pilate would not want to be seen as the person that allowed the whole thing to go up, so if he deemed Jesus to be an instigator of Jewish Independence ie a messiah, then he would want to suppress that very quickly.....so false witnesses were probably used to convince Pilate that Jesus preached insurrection and independence from Rome......nothing about him being King or his religeous views.
@jeffmartin5419 Josephus was a Jewish historian, and the mainstream Jews considered Jesus a heretic. To claim that the gospels are biased as historical documents, but that counterclaims written by someone with an opposing ideology are not is intellectually dishonest.
@wiretamer5710 the gospels and writings of Paul are contemporary historical documents. Whether or not you believe they are divinely inspired is irrelevant. The fact is they are part of the historical record, and they were written within living memory of the events described.
I went to the cave where Jesus was born and it was so beautiful, all the walls where painted with the story of the nativity and it was just bewildering. I done a whole Christian tour of Israel on the days leading up to Palm Sunday and the whole experience was just mind-blowing. It was one of the greatest few days of my life and I would recommend others to do a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. It’s a real shame what’s happening over there right now. There was a time when the three Abrahamic religions lived together in Jerusalem in harmony, wouldn’t it be great to just have peace over there now ...
The youtube channel “useful charts” has a very interesting video on depictions of Jesus. One of the oldest is a graffiti of Jesus with a donkey head on the cross mocking a Christian. You can see how his look changed when he was depicted as similar gods to introduce him to the romans. He started off being depicted as a Roman, then other Roman gods and eventually similar to the Greek god Zeus, which is where the long hair and bearded look comes from
Wow..so wrong. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A man is mocking Christ who is depicted as having a donkey head. He is also mocking Alex who is a Christian. Someone writes in response...Alex is faithful. And so am I ! 😀
One small addition: Jesus is present in a couple of religions, not just Christianity and Islam. He was one of the 4 prophets in manichaeism, which was a major world religion in the 3rd-7th centuries. In the druze faith, he is one of the 7 prophets. In the Bahá'i faith, he is a manifestation of God. Some Hindis consider him an avatar (an incarnation of a god) or sadhu (a holy person). Some Buddhists, including the current Dalai Lama, also consider him a budhisatva.
I enjoy the crossovers in many different religions that you could say sound like they could be the same person/deity, with just some slight differences that would matter to the people of that area at the time.
Pontius Pilate wrote about Jesus. There are records of his writing. He was complaining about the chaos Jesus was causing amongst the Jewish leaders of the time. Pilate didn't know what to do with him and stated that in his opinion Jesus hadn't done anything wrong. But we all know the outcome. So YES there is evidence of his existence.
There letter of Pilate to Tiberius is a copy made centuries after Pilate's dead. It's supposed to be a translation of the original letter that nobody know if it even existed and if it existed, that it was actually from Pilate. So no, there is no hard evidence. It wouldn't be the first forgery by the church, would it? Remember the Constantine Donation?
Was Jesus real? Probably. Was he the resurrected son of a god while also being that god who sacrificed himself to himself to save everyone from what he’d do to them if they didn’t worship him? Probably not
'probably'? for anyone not swayed by religious fantasy but secured in scientific facts there is no doubt that once someone died (especially after suffering the fatal torture of being crucified) there is no coming back to life, certainly no resurrection. the whole concept is utter fabrication. resurrection?!? pah, this Paul fellow ruined his whole reputation with this claim alone.
I always like to imagine how different our world would be if those wackier gospels were the canon. Monty Python has nothing on Jesus' wild childhood in those texts😂
You're pagan? So were the virtuous Romans, who accepted Jesus as one among many Gods, the Greeks and Romans knowing the following... An Empirical Proof of God's Existence: (1) The word 'true' entails a cognitive presence;* (2) The laws of the universe were true before they were discovered by corporeal life; therefore... (3) The laws of the universe were true before corporeal life existed, identifying the existence of a non-corporeal entity that knew the laws were true. The syllogism proves that an intelligent entity knew the laws of the universe were true before corporeal life existed, but is this non-corporeal entity God? Since the laws of the universe were always known to be true by this non-corporeal entity without the necessity of thinking about the laws of the universe, we therefore identify the infinitely knowledgeable entity with no need for thinking, which entity is known as God. -------------------------- * Only mind can divine a truth.
Always love listening to Helen Bond! If anyone cares to listen to her podcast you with find that there are many scholars over many disciplines that have studied the historicity of the Torah and the Bible and speak knowledgeably on how the books were assembled and what parts are historically supported. Her position that Jesus was a real man referenced not only by the Bible but by other historians of the time period does not mean that she swallows everything in the Bible as historically accurate. It is a text that is telling a story in order to support its teachings, and knowing that, it can be analyzed to separate the historical from the embellished. Did Jesus’s life happen and inspire religion? The answer is clearly YES. Was he the miracle working son of God? That’s up to you and your beliefs. Her beliefs are withheld here as she is speaking about history, not religion.
Me too. But some people nowadays are seem to be very bitter at Christianity to the point they love to deny historicity of Jesus and keep mocking every expert who doesn't agree with them and seem to be trigger at any mention of Jesus. (And there is of course the other group - overly-religious ones who reject any critical academic discourse.) It's so sad how fanatical are both sides.
Because Christians do not want any kind of possible fact to interfere with their idea of what they are told to believe. It is one of the major reasons I stopped being a Christian. The church does not want you to seek knowledge or ask questions.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518I would imagine it was almost certainly religious people voting the video down, not non-religious people. There are many Christians who find it very offensive to pull apart and scrutinise their religion in this matter-of-fact manner, and the video equates Jesus’ healing abilities to those of other holy men at the time which is also taboo to lots of Christians. Christian scholars who view the subject matter purely from an academic standpoint without necessarily being believers always have comments sections full of accusations of blasphemy and other negative feedback when they make these kinds of videos online.
@@final_animal I am not talkig about voting, I am talking about comments. When this video aired, during first few hours it was flooded in comments by non-religious people who disimssed historical Jesus as fairy tale and were asking "when there will be vidoe about Santa Claus and Tooth Witch?"
You know, I think I figured out why so many people are upset about this video. I think it's because they put a scholar to the task, who, in her research, does not enter the topic with the presupposition that Jesus was, in fact, the incarnation of a deity, and that you, as the researcher, have your eternal salvation on the line specifically when it comes to the belief in said Jesus as their lord and savior, which you know, might just maybe, in some maybe small maybe you know, possibly totally irrelevant way bias the researcher so horrendously that you could never have them honestly present this information.
I think that these comments perceived it as upseting due to the commonly managed discussions in internet about Jesus and Christianity,that are mostly directed into debunking the Christianity and Jesus.Mostly declaring in sophisticated manner or bias approach to Bible with their preassumptions that are unfortunately commonly met with,that "Bible says what it says,but we don't believe it or we very much doubt it outloud or indirectly."But that is not well-directed assumption to go with,when analyzing Bible without truly looking in it's meanings,historical evidence and dating or retoric that it uses,simply declaring,that it contradicts itself or it is written with well-prepared retoric to convince others,that it us true and the only true.In scientific sphere it is truly intelectually dishonest to go with that sort of agenda into that source, that requires more reflection than simply being biased atheist,sceptic or agnostic looking at it only having debunking or mitologylizing effort in mind.
I’m sorry, but many scholars who started out secular have come to the realization of Jesus’ deity only AFTER doing their work via secular research. The problem with your insinuation is that it leaves out the fact that those who seek to do anything via secular means go in with a presupposition of their own: that Jesus was not the Christ. Every single human being on this planet has a worldview and that worldview absolutely and unequivocally informs the way “experts” go about their research. What matters is the evidence, which we have via eye witness accounts that, to date, actual textual critics cannot deny were eye witness accounts from the first century. And given the result of Impact Events, it is very plausible that details could be remembered as if they were yesterday, whether written down a few years or decades later. That’s how trauma victims can recall every detail of something that happened to them, or how an elderly soldier who has forgotten much can clearly describe a mass tragedy like Pearl Harbor, etc.
@ThepPixel did you watch the video? The Greek version is not phonetically the same as Jesus, as with your Dafydd example. Also, it's not the Aramaic version, Jesus is based on the Greek translation. His name was not 'Jesus', it was closer to 'Joseph' or 'Joshua'. It is silly that people evoke a name that he never went by in his life. There are similar Greek mistranslations throughout the book. Tell me, do you actually know the actual number that is supposed to be 'the devils numbers'? Because it's not 666.
@ThepPixel if the sounds you make to say the name are not the sounds you make to say the name, you're not saying the name. The man would never have responded to the name 'Jesus'. The mental backflips you do to justify this notion do not change that. They are simply NOT the same name.
@@ThepPixel I think it's also hilarious that you picked yet another example of the Church later changing the name of a holy figure to 'David' because they found it more palatable than his actual Welsh name that he actually would have went by. Which was Dewi, which is a form of the name 'Dewydd', which itself is a culturally Welsh form of 'David'. These are not the same names, even if connected in form. Think Richard & Dick or William & Bill. If you go by one of those names, you don't tend to go by the other because it's not what you tell people your name is. If you went back in time and called them 'David' or 'Jesus', they would correct you as to what they go by. That's what I'm getting at that you're failing to track/recognize. It's an erasure of culture in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience. Greek was more broadly spoken and read than Aramaic. The English historically fought and oppressed the Welsh, so they Anglicized the name to make him seem less Welsh.
I really do like kind of summation here being that Jesus was essentially the Martin Luther of Judaism at that time in history. And all we really have for proof is a decent number of contemporary texts saying he existed and did this.
So the followers of JC waited decades to a hundred years after his death to write an account? How is this a historical record? It’s more like a historian writing about the fables of Atlantis. While Jesus probably lived, the mythology written about him is just that. I was hoping for an objective review of these questions.
He's mentioned in the Pauline Epistles about 20 yrs after his death. The scholarly consensus is that a traveling apocalyptic preacher named Jesus existed and had a following but obviously the religious stuff and miracle claims are unprovable.
@@pirththee Look up the critical biblical scholar Dan McClellan here on RU-vid, he has a PhD in the Bible and the cognitive science of religion. Especially relevant is his video: "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?".
As a jew, Jesus 22:49 most likely followed jewish customs and fashion, which the romans never tried to erase until 70CE. I doubt he shaved his face like Professor Bond says.
What sort of records would you expect? Full census data? A complete execution list for the day? It's extremely rare that we find any paper that is 2000 years old, sadly we don't have everything they filed from back in the day. There is plenty of historical evidence for Jesus. A lot more actually than figures like Alexander or Emperor Tiberius. Loads of witnesses and reports from within a hundred years of his life. That's rare for anyone 2000 years ago.
They're looking for a body or tomb which are sadly often lost to time. We didn't even know for sure if Pontius Pilate was an actual person til the 1960s.
I like the boatbuilder speculation. And since we're speculating, maybe the 1st century A.D. "Jesus Boat", discovered during the 1980s, may have been his handiwork?
Did he even exist? What about the "silent historians". Historians who lived in the 20s, 30s, and 40s AD and they never mentioned him. A person who performed amazing miracles - walked on water, calmed the storm, resurrected the dead, and changed one liquid into another (water into wine). Nobody wrote about him when he was alive, nobody kidnapped him.
Scholars believe there was a Jewish man named Jesus who traveled around in that time period and had apocalyptic teachings but obviously those miracles are not something that can be proven.
@@TheStijg I find this very bizarre. A person with powerful, god-like skills and abilities was never mentioned. Nobody abducted him to use his skills. He could resurrect the dead. How incredible is that? He could change one substance into another. That's incredible. The Roman Empire was very bureaucratic, they wrote about everything worth mentioning and a person with magical abilities was certainly worth noting. The gospels were written by people who had never seen Jesus in person. Never. They weren't even close to him.
@@oldi184 You didn't listen her - there were many figures of miracle performers. Jesus wasn't so special to outsiders. It was his followers that made mark on history.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 I think Jesus did not exist. She often said that there is no good, hard evidence that Jesus Christ was real. And why the New Testament was written in Greek? Why not in Aramaic?
