What non-biblical records of Jesus do we have? 

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-07oUKtqazL0.htmlsi=EeDU7U2ZBfTyAAET

he's a mormon genius

No! We will never abandon the Gate of Coal! 😂

im a bad girl, i use baking soda@@EdKolis

@@EdKolis Heresy!

Pasta with an 'e'?? It is toothpasta!!

Heretic! Blasphemer! All hail the Almighty Colgate!

Funny 65,000 years of my peoples civilisation and culture and nothing, nada on any middle eastern god.

Indeed, leaving aside for now the question of the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum (but pointing out that the oft-quoted "overwhelming majority" of the scholars who believe there is a non-interpolated core to it are scholars with a *faith investment* in the historicity of Jesus Christ), all these three documents that Dan analyzed do is testify that, around the beginning of the second century CE / end of the first century CE, there were people who called themselves Christians and who BELIEVED there was once a character named Jesus Christ. Note that none of these three testimonies suggests that any of these Christians declared to have ever *met* Jesus in person - they just confessed their belief in his existence and messiahship. In other words, we don't even have a first-degree hearsay testimony. And before we put too much stake on the relevance this material has for the historicity of JC, let's remember that American troops became the unwilling cause of the development of so-called Cargo Cults (google it, fascinating) in the Pacific islands, with the figure of a John Frum at the center of some of them. There are PLENTY of testimonies from troops and from anthropologists that came to the islands shortly after the war about there being people on these islands that *believed* in John Frum, his preaching, and his eventual return. Yet this embarrassment of riches in testimony says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the 'historicity' of this John Frum, whom most scholars consider a composite figure out of the many representations the Pacific islanders had of white Europeans. It is my contention that the literary figure of Jesus Christ is another such composite, within the Hellenistic Judaism - so yes, I am a mythicist.

Not only that, Tacitus is undoubtedly a forgery as it doesn't appear anywhere in history until the 9th cent.CE. Josephus is a known forgery.

Well 90 Ad isn't 100 years after. It's 60. Get your facts right.

There are no eyewitnesses to Jesus existence. Nobody knows when he was born, nor when he died. Then these pathetic Christians talk about facts.

@@freedomclub2285Well here are the facts: 1) that was a summary of what Dan said not me. 2) Those three writers wrote from 93/94 -122 CE (63/64 - 92 years after Jesus's ministry) 3) I used "approx." which fits just fine given the 92 years and that some of those "traditions of Jesus" include his birth narrative which was approx. 30 years prior. 4) all of which is hearsay by these writers from believers after the fact! So COPE!

@@veridicusmaximus6010 "traditions of jesus" 30 years prior of what. i honetly can't figure out what you're trying to say. Could you please rephrase what you wrote.

What does "confirm the gospels" mean here?

Corroborate with third party factual accounts from dissimilar perspectives. Y'know, confirm.

@@creamwobbly Corroborate what, exactly? His existence? All the claims made about him? What?

Unless the records confirmed his existence and some of the basic facts, but clashed with the theology.

@@jeffmacdonald9863 Any existence could be massaged to doctrine. No records is just no records, as Origen confirmed in the third century.

I always clicked eagerly, impressed with Dan's rigorous adherence to evidence and logic, right up until I found him treating Josephus as if it were not fatally corrupted. Rigor has its limits.

Yes, and the other sources he used were even farther away. That's not evidence. That is hearsay.

@@plotinus393 Not all of them, but the ones who do hang on like leaches.

Pretty much correct. If Peter hallucinated Jesus (after believing in this Jesus figure existing in a spiritual realm) and Paul glommed on, this could produce the same result as a "historical apocalyptic preacher Jesus". Only real question is "what is more likely?". If you look at the prior probability, there are plenty of examples of gods being created from thin air and also of real people becoming gods. Then again, apocalyptic preachers named Jesus who got crucified by the Romans - this probably happened more than once.

Pretty much. You have very good evidence that Christians exist, but the evidence that Christ existed isn't nearly as good.

Yep. And add to that the fact that Paul, the gospels and Hebrews are also all written decades after Jesus's death. So effectively we have nothing about Jesus, just about the traditions that developed decades after

@@dancahill9585 This is exactly what we'd expect. That said, the evidence that the historical Jesus existed (whether he was "Christ" is another issue completely) is good enough for that to be the most likely scenario.

@@andres.igmendez So? And we'd expect something else? Why? What you just described is what we have for ... almost everyone in the ancient world.

I watched a documentary in the uk where 2 female theologians presented theories on the role of women in the church in the early days of Christianity, including the theory that for each male apostle there was a female one. They found several tombs of women who held important positions in the church. Truly eyeopening

LOL 😂 both Dr.Michael S.Heiser and Michael Jones have quoted Pliny the younger: you should try and NOT talk from your ignorance of actual Apologists And those were just 2 examples of many.

I've heard them talk about the reference, but never the mention of female deaconesses. The fact that they were also slaves might make it extra awkward.

@naysneedle5707 yeah, exaclty same.

I've heard apologist occasionally quote, frequently cite, and usually misrepresent the letters between Pliny the Younger and Trajan. The line is to try to use the correspondence as evidence for a resurrection, because Christians were willing to die for this belief. Not a valid conclusion, and furthermore the letters say no such thing. The Roman's do not mention resurrection and show no interest in the content, the doctrine of this "superstitio".

Really? You must have known nothing 6 days ago.

@@timhallas4275 who are you again?

@@CanadianAnglican I am your last chance to be truly saved.

If its biblical ita bullshit. Your delusional in your trying to justify your ignorance and superstition.

Funny how my niece is a medical researcher and published yet when i talk to her about her research she does not use any form of Bayesian analysis is not done (this has happened in other fields, such as the medical field with false diagnoses, such as with breast cancer prognosis), Keep your RU-vid trash accusations to yourself or i will report you for lying , Trying to justify your ignorance through doing a Kent Hovind Ray Comfort science. That Blabber above has about as much credence as a prothletizer stranding on a corner trying to indoctrinate children into a pedophile club called religion. Bayesian analysis is a statistical paradigm that answers research questions about unknown parameters using probability statements. For example, what is the probability that the average male height is between 70 and 80 inches or that the average female height is between 60 and 70 inches? Not used in any reserach. Actual methodology for detecting cancer , Imaging tests used in diagnosing cancer may include a computerized tomography (CT) scan, bone scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) scan, ultrasound and X-ray, among others. Biopsy. During a biopsy, your doctor collects a sample of cells for testing in the laboratory. If you haven't got any thing based in reality to claim please keep it to sunday school

There’s linguists on RU-vid that explain how Latin pronunciation has changed over the many centuries Latin was in use. I too was a bit shocked when I heard about the hard C of the early imperial period. 😁

In Classical Latin the letter C is always a hard C. This is true for other names too. Caesar for instance.

They may have used the letter K only when transliterating Greek. Otherwise, they used a C for that sound.

@@DavidAlastairHayden Which is where the German word "Kaiser" comes from. (From another pronunciation comes the Russian "Tsar".)

i'm a big fan of the reconstructed classical pronunciation of Latin, yet i still say Tacitus with a /s/. it's perfectly valid and not "wrong" unless you put it in a context where it is wrong basically

Well… we assume Jesus brother James, mentioned by Josephus, the Gospels and Paul knew he existed.😊

@@chefchaudard3580Paul had a vision (and did not actually meet Christ,) which could have been during an epileptic seizure or due to ergot for all we know. Or he could have written a story. Some people insist they were abducted by aliens. Do we know for certain that Jesus had a brother James? Have there ever been people who claimed to be related to a famous person? Even if a Jesus existed, what are the odds that he didn't rise from the dead after 2 1/2 days? Most people don't.

@@Spiritof_76No one arguing for a historical Jesus is arguing that he rose from the dead. They might argue that some his followers believed so, but that's not the same thing. And there have been people who claimed to be related to famous people, but claims to be related to non-existent and thus not famous people are much rarer.

@@jeffmacdonald9863 No one? Do you really believe that? Christians argue for both. Non-existent THUS not famous? There are plenty of famous non-existent people. The fiction section of the library is full of them. That's the section the bible belongs in.

@@Spiritof_76Plenty of Christians argue that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God incarnate in history. "The historical Jesus" is a term used by scholars to distinguish what likely was the basis for Christianity from Jesus as seen by Christians. But yes, you're correct. There are lots of people and some of them do crazy things. There's probably someone.

Unless im wrong there is this guy pilate who I think wrote a letter to someone herod I'm not sure who that is but in this letter He expresses regret and remorse over giving the order to execute Jesus. I'm a bit muddy on everything, but I think someone else also referenced this letter that was authenticated and agreed upon and I don't know if the letter in question itself is also authenticated but I think it is As for the Old testament, there are a few things that can account for events that are described such as this slate Or rock in Egypt that they found in a quartz mine That has an inscription on it that contain the name Moses and I believe the purpose of why it's important is that Moses was an Egyptian name, but I think it could be translated through Hebrew and the reason why that is important is because I believe most scholars agree that Jews didn't live in Egypt during this time, but if there is a Hebrew inscription or words on it, that would be evidence for that. But again I'm muddy on that and I think there is. Also, I don't know if it's a paper or a stone thing that was found, but something around an Egyptian house that had a list of a bunch of slaves that worked on that property I think and from there of like the 22 names or whatever there are only like two that are Egyptian and the rest are Hebrew names. I'm muddy on all these details. If you're interested, I'm sure I can look them up and I'll just copy and paste the exact words

The Bethsaida miracle (Jesus healing a blind man) by D. Keith Mano, National Review; 4/21/1997 Getting rid of blindness, I'm told, is not such a bargain after all. Human eyes, you see -- even when healed physically -- still need training and rigorous practice before they can transmit what is "real" and "not real" back to the brain. It doesn't much matter how long you've been sightless, either: a decade or so of blindness and your cerebral cortex has to be completely reprogrammed, as if from infanthood. On opening his eyes, the healed seer confronts a nonsensical, frightful, and, well, Cubist landscape. Over that shattered universe he must stubbornly impose the familiar 3D grid we live in. Oliver Sacks has written about the new seer in An Anthropologist on Mars. Virgil, age 50 and blind since childhood, has had "successful" eye surgery. Five weeks later he "often felt more disabled than he had felt when he was blind...Steps posed a special hazard, because all he could see was a confusion, a flat surface of parallel and criss-crossing lines; he could not see them (although he knew them) as solid objects going up or coming down in three-dimensional space." Furthermore, Virgil "would pick up details incessantly--an angle, an edge, a color, a movement--but he would not be able to synthesize them, to form a complex perception at a glance. This was one reason the cat, visually, was so puzzling: he would see the paw, a nose, the tail, an ear, but could not see all of them together, the cat as a whole." And, as his wife noted, "Virgil finally put a tree together--he now knows that the trunk and leaves go together to form a complete unit." The word-picture of an unmade tree set off associations in my mind. I remembered Jesus and the Bethsaida blind man (Mark 8:22-25. Mark's is the least adorned and oldest Gospel, dating roughly from 45 to 60 A.D.) "And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him. And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought." And the blind man (in what I had always considered a poetic image) replied to Jesus: "I see men as trees, walking." That is not a poetic image. It is a clinical description. Like Virgil, the Bethsaida blind man can now see, but he cannot yet make sense of what he's seeing. Tree and man run together, as did trunk and treetop for Virgil. (Both men could see movement because, according to Sacks, motion and color are inherent in the brain; they need not be learned or relearned.) All this moreover is not surprising to Jesus. He knows, it would seem, that a newly healed blind man has neither depth perception nor the ability to synthesize shape and form. The blind man's brain must first be recalibrated: it must be taught (in one miraculous instant) what you and I have known since childhood--how to see. So Jesus heals the blind man a second time. "After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly." As far as I can judge this is irrefutable evidence that a miracle did occur at Bethsaida. Back in 30 A.D. the blind did not often receive sight: there were few, if any, eye surgeons and seldom a decent miracle-worker. No shill in the crowd could have faked it all by pretending to be blind-because only someone recently given his sight would see 'men as trees, walking,' would see the Cubist jumble that Virgil told Oliver Sacks about. A faker, not knowing about post-blind syndrome, would have reported that Jesus had given him perfect vision. The most astonishing aspect of this miracle is its double nature: you get not one cure but two. Often even devout Christians downplay the wonder-working Jesus--lest they seem naive or overcredulous. We are somewhat embarrassed by New Testament miracles, as if God were cheating in the competition for our belief...Jesus healed through positive thought, or Essene hypnosis, whatever. Rasputin did the same: nothing supernatural about it. That explanation might still hold for Part One of the Bethsaida event. So let us suppose a man like Virgil, blind since childhood because of traumatic shock. Let us also suppose that Jesus, Messiah-as-therapist, came along and healed Virgil in a non-miraculous way. That does not (and cannot) explain Part Two. Whether Virgil's blindness was physical or psychosomatic, still his brain would have been deprived of the visual exercise and constant drill essential to clear three-dimensional sight. Only by a miracle could Jesus provide that necessary crash course in visual recognition. Charismatic therapists may be able to unblock sight --but they cannot infuse a human brain with that lifetime of visual experience necessary for normal sight. Both Positivist and Christian are stalemated on the subject of New Testament miracles. Positivist thought is certain that no miracle could ever have taken place -- because such an event would fatally contravene natural law. Your traditional Christian, by contrast, will accept the Gospel accounts on faith. Until now, these two categories of thinking were mutually exclusive: science and faith could not collaborate. But, at Bethsaida, something quite different came about: a miracle that depends on science for its proof, that cannot be understood except by adducing modern medical data --quite unknown in 30 A.D. -- as evidence. And, when one miracle has been proved, it then at once becomes not just possible, but probable, that another miracle can also be proved true. [end] The movie "At First Sight" (1999) is based on a true story recounted by neurologist Dr. Oliver Sacks.

The Bethsaida miracle (Jesus healing a blind man) by D. Keith Mano, National Review; 4/21/1997 Getting rid of blindness, I'm told, is not such a bargain after all. Human eyes, you see -- even when healed physically -- still need training and rigorous practice before they can transmit what is "real" and "not real" back to the brain. It doesn't much matter how long you've been sightless, either: a decade or so of blindness and your cerebral cortex has to be completely reprogrammed, as if from infanthood. On opening his eyes, the healed seer confronts a nonsensical, frightful, and, well, Cubist landscape. Over that shattered universe he must stubbornly impose the familiar 3D grid we live in. Oliver Sacks has written about the new seer in An Anthropologist on Mars. Virgil, age 50 and blind since childhood, has had "successful" eye surgery. Five weeks later he "often felt more disabled than he had felt when he was blind...Steps posed a special hazard, because all he could see was a confusion, a flat surface of parallel and criss-crossing lines; he could not see them (although he knew them) as solid objects going up or coming down in three-dimensional space." Furthermore, Virgil "would pick up details incessantly--an angle, an edge, a color, a movement--but he would not be able to synthesize them, to form a complex perception at a glance. This was one reason the cat, visually, was so puzzling: he would see the paw, a nose, the tail, an ear, but could not see all of them together, the cat as a whole." And, as his wife noted, "Virgil finally put a tree together--he now knows that the trunk and leaves go together to form a complete unit."The word-picture of an unmade tree set off associations in my mind. I remembered Jesus and the Bethsaida blind man (Mark 8:22-25. Mark's is the least adorned and oldest Gospel, dating roughly from 45 to 60 A.D.) "And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him. And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought." And the blind man (in what I had always considered a poetic image) replied to Jesus: "I see men as trees, walking." That is not a poetic image. It is a clinical description. Like Virgil, the Bethsaida blind man can now see, but he cannot yet make sense of what he's seeing. Tree and man run together, as did trunk and treetop for Virgil. (Both men could see movement because, according to Sacks, motion and color are inherent in the brain; they need not be learned or relearned.) All this moreover is not surprising to Jesus. He knows, it would seem, that a newly healed blind man has neither depth perception nor the ability to synthesize shape and form. The blind man's brain must first be recalibrated: it must be taught (in one miraculous instant) what you and I have known since childhood--how to see. So Jesus heals the blind man a second time. "After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly." As far as I can judge this is irrefutable evidence that a miracle did occur at Bethsaida. Back in 30 A.D. the blind did not often receive sight: there were few, if any, eye surgeons and seldom a decent miracle-worker. No shill in the crowd could have faked it all by pretending to be blind-because only someone recently given his sight would see 'men as trees, walking,' would see the Cubist jumble that Virgil told Oliver Sacks about. A faker, not knowing about post-blind syndrome, would have reported that Jesus had given him perfect vision. The most astonishing aspect of this miracle is its double nature: you get not one cure but two. Often even devout Christians downplay the wonder-working Jesus--lest they seem naive or overcredulous. We are somewhat embarrassed by New Testament miracles, as if God were cheating in the competition for our belief...Jesus healed through positive thought, or Essene hypnosis, whatever. Rasputin did the same: nothing supernatural about it. That explanation might still hold for Part One of the Bethsaida event. So let us suppose a man like Virgil, blind since childhood because of traumatic shock. Let us also suppose that Jesus, Messiah-as-therapist, came along and healed Virgil in a non-miraculous way. That does not (and cannot) explain Part Two. Whether Virgil's blindness was physical or psychosomatic, still his brain would have been deprived of the visual exercise and constant drill essential to clear three-dimensional sight. Only by a miracle could Jesus provide that necessary crash course in visual recognition. Charismatic therapists may be able to unblock sight --but they cannot infuse a human brain with that lifetime of visual experience necessary for normal sight. Both Positivist and Christian are stalemated on the subject of New Testament miracles. Positivist thought is certain that no miracle could ever have taken place -- because such an event would fatally contravene natural law. Your traditional Christian, by contrast, will accept the Gospel accounts on faith. Until now, these two categories of thinking were mutually exclusive: science and faith could not collaborate. But, at Bethsaida, something quite different came about: a miracle that depends on science for its proof, that cannot be understood except by adducing modern medical data -quite unknown in 30 A.D. - as evidence. And, when one miracle has been proved, it then at once becomes not just possible, but probable, that another miracle can also be proved true. [end] The movie "At First Sight" (1999) is based on a true story recounted by neurologist Dr. Oliver Sacks.

Outside the church there is no salvation.

@@coffee7521 Yeah, that's the sort of gibberish I usually get. Anyone can say that about any religion. You have failed to provide any evidence for a single supernatural claim in the entire Bible.

@@ast453000 I am sorry you failed to understand... the answers you seek are in church,,, good luck,,, I will pray for you!!!

Cool story.

What the f are you nattering on about. Why spin stories here?

That would be pretty dope if he was someone in the position to do anything. So what non-biblical records do we have of Paul? Not suggesting he didn't exist, just pointing to the fact there is little non-biblical evidence of him being anyone of importance. Writings attributed to him certainly had a major effect, but that effect was obviously much greater after his life. Efforts to get around whatever it was about the Jesus tales that led to the incredible spread of an offshoot of Judaism spreading throughout the Empire are highly questionable. At best, Paul (as the living man) was of minor consequence. So he made journeys and wrote letters. It's not as if he was riding around the Empire on pony express or sending telegraphs.

Not to mention the horde of zombies walking around Jerusalem after the 'resurrection'.

He does but they’re taken as fiction

he did, they’re called the gospels, the gnostic gospels, the infancy gospels, the epistles…

I've heard the lost 18 years were not lost and that Jesus made a visit to the land of the Magi who traveled to bring him gifts at his birth. There is also a YT about 'Yogis Who Saw Jesus and Those Who Revere Him'.

@@StandShining On the other hand, there's the famous poem by William Blake, "And did those feet in ancient time, Walk upon Englands mountains green," musing on the possibility of a visit by Jesus to Britannia during the "lost years".

I don't think there's any controversy, people just theorize that with zero evidence

​@@PastPresented💙s blessed by writings of William Blake! 🌹

​@@xravenx24feI thought about how we also only have Paul's word for his own vision(s), I think unless there's info I don't know about. And didn't Paul say the Cross was lacking and his sufferings were making up for what the Cross lacked? In my studies I've read and heard that visions, miracles, healings, and deliverances of many kinds are happening in every place called a Church, a Synagogue, a Mosque, a Spiritual Tradition, and with people having no spiritual beliefs. The Holy Spirit moving where it wills. I am in awe! 💐🕯️🤍

Or even more especially historical figures who weren't actual rulers and conquerors - those tend to get into documentation early and also to show on coins and monuments from their own lives. Think of other philosophers and religious leaders - Pythagoras or Apollonius of Tyana or even the Buddha. Or how many Jewish figures from roughly the NT period do we know only from Josephus?

Right, but it's not the original, hand-written text by the author. It's a copy (that was likley edited by some..... editor....). 😉

@@AGoodBuzz Actually I did have it signed by Todd McFarlane after standing in line for an hour at a Tower Records. But it is not univocal nor inerrant.

AFAIK it's mostly Christian scholars who insist that it's not added in wholesale. Anyway even if there is a fragment that Josephus actually wrote we have no way of knowing which fragment he did write, other with a "probably not this fragment" process of elimination - that's not likely to produce usable results IMO.

I think I heard there's an argument based on some earlier church father complaining that there was no mention of Jesus in Josephus. And then a later one came up with one. A bit sus.

@@KaiHenningsen "I think I heard ..... some earlier church father complaining that there was no mention of Jesus in Josephus." This seems to be a garbled reference to Origen who says that Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. Hew does NOT complain " there was no mention of Jesus in Josephus". In fact he quotes Josephus doing so - the Jesus-James reference in Bk XX - no less than three times. So what you think you heard is nonsense.

@@Sextus666No, it's not a garbled reference to Origen. It's an actual exchange where one Church father reads Josephus and finds no mention of Jesus, and BAM, a manuscript with a reference to Jesus is found by another Church father immediately after.

@@annaclarafenyo8185 " it's not a garbled reference to Origen" Okay. So who are you referring to then? Citations please. " ... one Church father reads Josephus and finds no mention of Jesus ..." Which Church father does this? Cite him please.

It just means person who has been anointed. Being anointed wasn't some strange concept that people wouldn't understand.

They are obviously right. And since he was Jewish and did not believe in Jesus, he wouldn't have call Him anointed/Messiah.

Josephus identifies various people, places and things as being "called X" without bothering to explain why. So this argument has no force. See Ant. IX.11, XIV.342, XX.196 and Vita 54 for examples.

@JopJio it didn't mean what it means to modern Christians There were many messiahs. To refer to someone as anointed didn't mean that you believed in their anointing. And no one thought it was a title that equated you to God. Like I might refer to the prophet Mohammed. That doesn't mean I believe in his preaching. But I do recognize he is considered a prophet, so I may call him by that title. I'm protestant and I recognize no papal authority. Yet I call that guy "the pope" Pope means father. I do not recognize him as being MY father or MY spiritual leader or authority. But I still call him the Pope. 2000 years from now someone could use your argument to claim I never referred to the catholic leader as the pope because I'm protestant.

@@JopJio What Josephus says in Bk XX is that he was "*called* Anointed". He's simply reporting what others called him, as he does elsewhere with other figures (eg Ant. XX.196). And variants on the Bk XVIII reference indicate this is also how that part of the text read.

"none of these authors tell us what their sources were" - Welcome to ancient history. This is normal. "Most likely they just asked some christians " - what makes this "most likely", exactly? "for all we know these non-biblical references are merely reporting hearsay from christian sources" - That's possible, but not "most likely" Tacitus disliked hearsay (see Ann. IV.11), despised Christians and had access to plenty of aristocratic Jews at the courts of Vespasian and Titus to ask about the origins of a Jewish sect. Josephus lived in the same small city as Jesus' brother James and was closely connected to the circumstances of his execution. So you don't get to just wave around the mere possibility that they are repeating Chrisitan claims to dismiss these references, you need to rule out all other possibilites. Can you?

@@Sextus666 What makes this most likely is that otherwise they would have mentioned their sources. It's not that hard. Generally people tend to substantiate what they say/write, if possible. They don' withhold information what would make their words more believable. They have no reason to.

@@gdevelek "otherwise they would have mentioned their sources" Ancient historians, including Tacitus and Josephus, rarely do so. So, no. "Generally people tend to substantiate what they say/write" See above. If what they are saying is something as unremarkable as "he was the brother of this other guy" or "here's some passing info as an aside about the guy who founded this cult that explains their name", they don't bother. So, no.

@@Sextus666 You hypothesizing as much as I am. So, no.

@@gdevelek Pardon? You are the one making bold claims about what Tacitus and Josephus "should" have done. I'm merely noting good reasons why your assertions don't follow and challenging you to back them up with something solid. It seems you can't.

most ppl are clueless about the origin of jeeebus but the criminally underrared channel 'Dragons in genesis podcast' explains it beautifully through his 'Shift in judaism' 'Enoch' and 'new teatament' playlist...i highly recomend it if u want the whole truth about this blood cult also read David fitzerald,Dr.Richard carrier(Phd),Dr.robert price(Phd),Dr.dennis mcdonald(Phd),mike lawrence they make a strong case for the mythical jeebus

I mean we have almost no original ancient writings. If saying that without those then we should basically throw out everything then we would barely know about Rome at all beyond what stones are left.

@@firstpersonwinner7404 i can tell that you are one of two things you are either 1. Dishonest with yourself and others or 2. Incapable of self reflecting and critical thinking skills or a mix of the two So ill try to healp you with this very basic lodgical view point that you seem to not be able to figure out on your own. The difference between historical documentation on Yeshua And historical information in general is that general historical information doesn't make a bold claim like saying that if you don't believe in it that you will die and suffer for all of eternity but you will be saved if you just believe in it Where as the claim made by the character of jesus/yeshua is that exact claim. And so because the claim is so bold it requires a much more substantial ammount of verification then some random bit of ancient literature And we dont have ANYTHING from ANYONE that was alive at the same time as jesus and the three extremely vague tampered with manuscripts that might mention him, well even those are sevral copies away from the "original" but thats assuming that the person accredited to those writings actually didn't even write those in the first place And why would he not fulfill Old Testament prophecy but then say he's going to come back in order to do that and do so before all of the apostles die and then wait over 2000 years and still hasn't been back? Especially seeing as how the Old Testament mentions nothing about him leaving and then coming back again. Its because it was all made up, the second Christianity was invented it was post dated so that it would be impossible for someone to verify any of the claims just like we cant do today.

And all the copies of Josephus trace oddly back to Eusebius's 4th-century library copy. As if, handed Imperial authority, he had all the others destroyed. Eusebius, anyway, recognized he had a serious PR problem with the exactly zero secular corroborations for existence of a Jesus, and set out to mend the gap. We know it was him because the TF is packed with uniquely Eusebian idiom.

@@firstpersonwinner7404 do you not understand the difference between ancient writings in general and the bold claims made by biblical writings? I mean are you playing stup!d to try and keep from having to examine your core beliefs? Or are you actually stup!d enough to not know that with bold claims such as "believe or burn in hell forever" requires a lot of evidence in order to substantiate

I find Matthew strange in my opinion. That is also the first book that mentions Peter being given the keys of heaven and earth by Jesus which I also think is weird as there is a Mithrian lion headed statue that appears frequently enough that also holds keys that appeared around the same time. I am not well versed in Bible studies and have just started learning, but there are weird parallels to be drawn that make me question if the authorship of Matthew could have been influenced by early mithrian members

You could be very right in that it could have been a common way of understanding heaven and earth at the time and I am misconstruing evidence. Thank you for enlightening me

Sounds pretty solid to me

Why would that be more likely than the idea that some guy named Jesus and his followers thought he was resurrected and called him Christ?

It’s probably not more likely. But it does propose a solution to why early Christans were called chrestians

most ppl are clueless about the origin of jeeebus but the criminally underrared channel 'Dragons in genesis podcast' explains it beautifully through his 'Shift in judaism' 'Enoch' and 'new teatament' playlist...i highly recomend it if u want the whole truth about this blood cult also read David fitzerald,Dr.Richard carrier(Phd),Dr.robert price(Phd),Dr.dennis mcdonald(Phd),mike lawrence they make a strong case for the mythical jeebus

Hint: what you have just announced is textbook dogmatic bias.

@@sciptick So you don’t know what any of those words mean? Good to know.

They R in the Bible: I guess you don't read it .

@davidjanbaz7728 Such a good guess. 👍

".... that alone is not enough prove he actually existed." Historians don't do "proof", sorry. But they do do asessments of what's most likely. Luckily we have more than Tacitus and Josephus (e.g Paul met Jesus' brother and had arguments with him - see Gal 1-2) and so overall it's most likely he existed. "Nobody knew Jesus, that's a big problem." Is it? Who should have mentioned him but didn't? Details please.

Why is it a big problem? What records would you expect? At least for the historical version of Jesus. If all the Gospel events happened, including the resurrection being seen by hundreds and other dead people rising, that seems like it would get recorded.

@@jeffmacdonald9863 If nobdy new knew Jesus then somebody could have easily made up the story of Jesus. Thats odd that there is all these accounts of Jesus but yet nobody knew Jesus. Somebody should of met Jesus.

@@Shawner666Who? Who should have known Jesus? A provincial backwater preacher who likely only even did that for a couple of years before he was killed? And whose religion didn't become politically important until decades after his death. Whose original avid followers were illiterate peasants. Somebody could have made it up. In theory. But it's a weird thing to make up. I know in retrospect it seems obvious, since Christianity did take over much of the world and it shapes the way we think about religion, but it wouldn't have been at all obvious to anyone at the time that was going to happen or that this kind of story was a good way to get there.

It has never been a problem. It's only a problem for people who say there is proof he existed. People who believe in "other than this physical universe" do not need any physical proof of anything. For instance, most people who hold to the King James Version of the Bible as the inerrant word of God, believe the version is divinely inspired. In other words, they believe it's better than the original transcripts (if they existed). Nothing a scholar like Dan has to say about the KJV has any bearing on what they believe. We know the Jesus tales spread throughout the Empire in the first couple centuries CE. We know it more because of historicity in the 3rd century (not because of what was reported about the first couple centuries, but because of the reports of historic evidence of the existence of a lot of Christians in the 3rd century) than we do of the Biblical "historicity" (references to Paul etc.) and the "'Church historicity". The fact the Jesus tales, an offshoot of a relatively obscure Jewish religion, spread throughout the Empire, mainly taking hold in the metropolises of Northern Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean raises the odds considerably the guy existed. If the tales are anywhere near reality, there wouldn't be any record of him. He wasn't an historic figure. He became one but was of no consequence at the time. The only things he did of any note in the tales were miracles but even playing devil's advocate and saying he did them, we're talking local miracles. Healing people and bringing people back from the dead would be really cool if it was done at the Colosseum, and walking on water would have been quite the rage if it was done in front of Roman Legions, but that's not where the tales take us. The historicity of Jesus is simply not an issue with believers even if some of them are intent on proving there is historical evidence. Everyone could agree right now there is no proof of his having existed and it's quite possible it would increase the number of people who believe. Due to the fact there is no way to prove Jesus existed, attempts to do so probably weaken the chances of growth within Christianity. They stop engaging in trying to prove ties to the physical world and there is a possibility their numbers would increase.

Why?

That would be very interesting indeed! So viewers of the channel could have the opinion and data from the minimal mythicist hypothesis that Dr Carrier thoroughly built for years and is solidly explained in The Historicity of Jesus, and in Proving History.

Richard Carrier is a crank. A fringe loon whose vanity published screeds are cited by exactly 0 people in the academic community.

@@maatjusticia3954 Strange how no other scholars find his stuff to be "thorougholy built" or "solidly explained". Just untrained online fanboys. Why do you think that is?

​@@Sextus666academic bias? Do you prefer Dr. Bob Price? Dr. Richard Atchity? Or do you prefer the classics such as Bruno Bauer or the Dutch Radical School of theology?

How indeed... IMO this should be enough to convince anyone that even if there is a god, it does not care to be acknowledged or worshipped.

It is not God's work. The bible(s) can not even agree on who went to the tomb

That is the thing, a whole mighty God of the universe and this is the best you can do? Like wtf

Bc it’s made up. Make the distinction btwn the concept of God and man made attempts at trying to interpret what they think the concept is God is like . Yaweh is made up

Because you’re to take it on faith.

Jesus is described as a historical person in sources from within a century of his (purported) lifetime, and the earliest evidence has at least a plausible chain of transmission (Paul, who knew Peter and James and so on, seems to have viewed Jesus as a recently-living human ("born of a woman", "descended from David according to the flesh" etc.) in addition to viewing him as the Messiah). In contrast all evidence for Moses comes from centuries after his supposed lifetime, and the events associated with him do not appear to be historical either (the Exodus and conquest of Caanaan).

​@@jaojao1768there's a couple things I believe. I don't know if you could take them as concrete but I know of at least two things that have to do with them. I think one being an inscription and a quartz mine in Egypt that has can be translated with Hebrew and contains the name Moses which is important because Moses is an Egyptian name but it can be translated through Hebrew I think there is also a list of slaves in an Egyptian household that they found that dates to the time where I don't know. Some people agreed upon these events would have taken place. But anyways on this either piece of paper or inscription I don't know which I could find it if you wanted me to. But there is a list of a bunch of slave names for people who worked for that property or area or whatever. I don't know it's something I read a A few months ago. I could definitely find it though. But anyways on this slate there is a list of 20 names and I believe like 15 of them were Hebrew names and it said that there were supposed to be no evidence of Jews in the area during this time. Something like that

Caesar died in 44 BC. Why are you telling lies?

Lying for Jesus is still lying.

@@Seticzech It is true that I can't prove those letters are real, but neither can you prove that anybody loves you. You feel that love the same way I feel the love Christ has for me. All is fine. Jesus wakes up those he wants to.

@@donnyetta I don't need to prove that. Jesus wakes up nobody, he's just a legend.

I agree. But I was intrigued when Christopher Hitchens argued (repeated the argument?) ... "For instance, the story of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is fabricated, with no census or requirement for people to go back to their hometown to be registered. Quirinius was not governor of Syria in that year as stated in the Gospels, and not one Gospel agrees with each other on this fabrication. The very falsity of the Nativity story suggests that there may have been a charismatic, deluded individual wandering around at that time."

Years ago I ran into something referencing a person known as Jesus Ben Pantera. He had a lot of traits we associate with Jesus including being referred to as the Bringer of Light. It seems he was stoned to death in 88 BC. Supposedly he is known to historians but I can't really find anything on the internet referencing him. (Although there is also a Tiberius Pantera who is allegedly Jesus's real father but the dates don't line up.) But coincidentally about the same time I came across a copy of the Essene Gospel of Peace which was supposedly translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This also has a Jesus teaching all kind of things but with a MUCH different take on things. Namely that the Holy Trinity would consist of the Father, the MOTHER, and the Son. ("Mother in this context is the Mother Earth. And WOW, let me tell you, aside from being contrary to modern teachings their concepts are MUCH more coherent and actually make sense!) But what's interesting is at the time I was doing a lot of research into this kind of thing about the historocity of Jesus and how he was likely based on a real person... And then it suddenly dawned on me. What if the Jesus of the Essenes was this guy. And what if his teachings are what the Christian Jesus is based on. That would explain so much! (E.g. the Christian trinity of "the Father, the Son and the ::clears throat loudly to change the subject::)

@4saken404 Interesting. However, I can't say that brings me any closer. Still a lot of speculation and what ifs going on. Lol

@@4saken404 Essenes Gospel of Peace?? This one: "Edmond Bordeaux Szekely (March 5, 1905 - 1979) was a Hungarian philologist/linguist, philosopher, psychologist and natural living enthusiast. Szekely authored The Essene Gospel of Peace, which he claimed he had translated from an ancient text he supposedly discovered in the 1920s. Scholars consider the text a forgery.[1][2] " from wikipedia

@MizzouRah78 I agree. But I was intrigued when Christopher Hitchens argued (repeated the argument?) ... "For instance, the story of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is fabricated, with no census or requirement for people to go back to their hometown to be registered. Quirinius was not governor of Syria in that year as stated in the Gospels, and not one Gospel agrees with each other on this fabrication. The very falsity of the Nativity story suggests that there may have been a charismatic, deluded individual wandering around at that time."

The Vedic literature is vast by comparison.

Which bible ? The Jewish Christians didn't use our gospels and had a different gospel. They didn't use our sources today, so we have to understand the bibles we have today are not reliable and only portrsy Pauline Christianity

There is no "prove" when all we have are literary sources. New Testament Studies is not a field that gets reliable results; it just looks that way because it is frequently contrasted with Theology. The ration of conjecture to data in this field is absolutely staggering.

most ppl are clueless about the origin of jeeebus but the criminally underrared channel 'Dragons in genesis podcast' explains it beautifully through his 'Shift in judaism' 'Enoch' and 'new teatament' playlist...i highly recomend it if u want the whole truth about this blood cult also read David fitzerald,Dr.Richard carrier(Phd),Dr.robert price(Phd),Dr.dennis mcdonald(Phd),mike lawrence they make a strong case for the mythical jeebus

Serious scholars like Carrier and Lataster (and Dr. McClellan) don't start with something to prove. They look at the data, and see where it leads. I like a lot of what Dr. Ehrman has to say, but starting with the assumption that Jesus was an historical figure is not the way to understand what the data can actually tell us.

What scholars are you referring to? I haven’t read anyone *with any credibility* try to _prove_ that Jesus didn’t exit, but rather, the evidence seems to indicate that Jesus could have been entirely invented as well as the that he could have been an historical person, but that we know nothing concrete about him from a historical basis.

You mean Doctor "Tons and tons of evidence, how dare you doubt me" Ehrman?

You can find "some scholars" to support pretty much any position on this stuff you care to mention. What counts is which position has convinced the consensus of scholars. And I wouldn't pay much attention to Chrissy Hansen if I were you.

​@@Sextus666 the scholarly consensus is that if a Jesus existed, it is a different Jesus than the one in the Nt. So therefore it's fair to assume the Jospehus passage is not authentic too

@@JopJio "it is a different Jesus than the one in the Nt." Pardon? What exactly does that mean? If you mean the historical Jesus wasn't the Jesus the later NT traditions are talking about, then that is NOT the scholarly consensus at all. "therefore it's fair to assume the Jospehus passage is not authentic too" Which one? There are two. And the scholarly consensus on them is that the first one is mostly authentic and the second one totally so. Have you actually read the scholarship on this?

​@@Sextus666What's your beef with Chrissy, out of curiosity?

@@kamilgregor She has long had a bad tendancy to overstate her views as though they are unvarnished fact and scream at anyone who disagrees. Her lack of maturity and emotional stability makes dialogue with her a chore and usually pointless.

“Takitus” Is close to Roman pronunciation. “Ply knee” is very far from Roman.

You consider it a slam to say there are no historical records of a "historical Jesus"?

​@@MarcillaSmith 😂

@@MarcillaSmith Huh?? That's an odd take...No, not at all. Saying that, actually supports mythicism. The slam is bringing up mythicists for no apparent reason and out of nowhere.

@@kalitatl8540 "Out of nowhere"? You can't see how they are relevant here?

@@Sextus666 Honestly I don't. Related? yes. Relevant? No, not really. Maybe if the title had included a mention to Mythicism or if Dan had mentioned this was directed at mythicism, but the comment came totally out of left field and it was unnecessary to Dan's topic.

Most of our sources for most ancientfigures aren't contemporaneous. No historian uses that as a criterion for the existence of an ancient figure, so it's weird that amateur commenters seem obsessed with contemporaeity. And " they are just records of what Christians believed? They are? Please show us where Tactus says this. Please explain why Jospehus would need Christians to tell him that his older contemporary and fellow Jerusalemite James was Jesus' brother and why this would not be common knowledge in a small city.

@@Sextus666 Again, Christianity was one of many minor sects and cults at that time, so why would he know the alleged genealogy of someone that died decades ago? As for Tacitus, unless he indicated that he actually cited sources, what reason is there to believe that he went out of his way to research whether or not some minor cult's member's mundane claims that their founder was executed by a guy who was known to have loved executing Jews? Most of our sources aren't contemporaneous, but they have way more historical weight than just extremely contradictory religious statements, and medical claims are generally tossed aside as ahistoric (like the alleged miracles of Emperor Vespasian). Caesar had statues, coins, his own alleged writing, the commentary of his political rivals, and the fall of the Roman Republic. Alexander the Great has a whole bunch of nations suddenly collapse and then rename cities after him.

@@lnsflare1 "why would he know the alleged genealogy of someone that died decades ago? " Josephus just mentions that a contemporary of his who lived in the same small city was the brother of a well-known guy. This is not exactly remarkable. "what reason is there to believe that he went out of his way to research whether or not some minor cult's member's mundane claims that their founder was executed by a guy who was known to have loved executing Jews" The fact that he was a historian who did this regularly and shows good evidence of checking this kind of stuff. That's the reason. And comparing the evidence we have for a Jewish preacher to that for Caesar, Alexander etc is a patently silly case of comparing apples to watermelons. Dude, get better arguments please.

@@Sextus666 “Most of our sources for most ancient figures aren’t contemporaneous” Ok i do believe that Jesus may have existed (although I doubt that he existed at the same time) but I hate when someone brings this up when somebody says there are contemporary sources for Jesus (Which I don’t agree with. We have paul who is a contemporary source. And i do think it’s possible the gospels could be contemporary sources as well) because each historical figures is different on their own. So it doesn’t really work to appeal this to other historical figures. I also would expect for someone like Jesus to have tons of contemporary source but pretty much we only just have almost no contemporary source for him.

most ppl are clueless about the origin of jeeebus but the criminally underrared channel 'Dragons in genesis podcast' explains it beautifully through his 'Shift in judaism' 'Enoch' and 'new teatament' playlist...i highly recomend it if u want the whole truth about this blood cult also read David fitzerald,Dr.Richard carrier(Phd),Dr.robert price(Phd),Dr.dennis mcdonald(Phd),mike lawrence they make a strong case for the mythical jeebus

Not a mythicist but I think it was invented, specifically probably because Jesus was (at some point) associated with the term Nazarene. Matthew probably misunderstood what this meant and then placed Jesus in Nazareth. I think that Mark 1:9 is probably an interpolation (I'm not alone in this), for a few reasons including that Mark places Jesus' home explicitly in Capernaum in chapter 2, and never uses the term "Nazareth" anywhere else. I think it was probably a harmonization with Matthew at a later point. I think it is legit just Matthew doesn't understand the term.

most ppl are clueless about the origin of jeeebus but the criminally underrared channel 'Dragons in genesis podcast' explains it beautifully through his 'Shift in judaism' 'Enoch' and 'new teatament' playlist...i highly recomend it if u want the whole truth about this blood cult also read David fitzerald,Dr.Richard carrier(Phd),Dr.robert price(Phd),Dr.dennis mcdonald(Phd),mike lawrence they make a strong case for the mythical jeebus

Jesus was supposedly born in Bethlehem and Bethlehem has never been found on a map not even to this day

I would expect someone with Dr. Mcclellan's commitment to "the data" to treat the serious scholarship that raises significant doubts about authenticity of the references to "Christ" in Josephus with more respect than this flippant remark. To be clear, I really respect what Dr. McClellan does. I would like to see him pay more attention to the equally competent scholarship of people like Dr. Richard Carrier with regard to the actual data we have regarding the historicity of Jesus.

​@@petedgr81 "The data" has limits that become evident when it gets a little too close to home. People have suggested that Ehrman knows full well how shaky existence is, but knows his lecture attendance would collapse if he were to acknowledge it as a legitimate topic.

C is always pronounced K in classical Latin so that would have been the pronunciation in Tacitus' lifetime.

Incorrect. Suetonius uses "Chrestus" for an unrelated figure, and then "Christian" completely separately. Also the misspelling is well attested. Justin Martyr even makes jokes about this misspelling switching the iota for an eta. It is a frequent complaint back into the second century CE.

@@chrish4309 Sorry you are correct about Suetonius not mentioning Chrestians.In the 80's Chrestus was a different person and all references in Josephus to Jesus was fraud. That has now swapped around. Regardless, we have no autograph for Suetonius and the fact remains that all artifacts we do have through at least up until the 5th century use the eta. That is not just the second century. I am unaware of any second century artifacts that mention any Christians. Do you know of any? Can you supply the Justin Martyr reference? Is it from a copy any earlier than 1200 years after the supposed time of his writing? Lactantius - Divine Institutes, Book IV Ch. VII - "...for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings. But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus."

It's not a bit unfair, it's a deliberate dishonest attack.

The thing is that mythicists reasons to reject these texts don’t hold water. There are simply unconvincing. Hence why there are rejected by the vast majority of scholars.

@@chefchaudard3580 The mythicists don't reject these texts, they simply point out that your interpretation of them is preconditioned on historicism, and if you read them mythically, they make a lot more sense and form a coherent story, unlike in the historicist narrative.

@@chefchaudard3580Mythicists don't reject any texts.

​ @annaclarafenyo8185 " if you read them mythically, they make a lot more sense and form a coherent story" Really? Please explain how we read Tacitus' bald and clear statement that Jesus was a man who was executed by Pilatus in Judea during the reign of Tiberius "mythically"?

God still communicates with humans. Today it is known as mental illness.

"no direct evidence of this person" - Much like ... most figures in the ancient world. Welcome to ancient history - enjoy your stay. " only evidence of decades old Christian traditions" - You know that Tacitus was drawing on "Christian traditions"? Where does he tell us this? Josephus needed "Christian traditions" to tell him that his contemporary and fellow Jerusalem citizen James was Jesus' brother? Why would this not have been common knowledge in a small city? Please explain.

@@Sextus666 Yes I'm aware that ancient history is fuzzy, which is why we need to think about it in terms of probabilities and shouldn't be so sure of ourselves. Tacitus wrote well after Jesus is said to have died and the vast majority of scholars agree that Tacitus got his information about Jesus from Christians (i.e. Christian tradition). Some argue that he got his information from Josephus, and that could already have been interpolated. As for Josephus - we know that early Christians called each other "brother" all the time so it's not a slam dunk that this was a biological brother. I think it probably was biological... Anyway the point is that the evidence is not beyond reproach.

​@@Sextus666 well none of them was as big as Jesus in the Gospels. We would expect many more references to Jesus and all the miracles like the zombies in GMat

@@travis1240 "we need to think about it in terms of probabilities " Historians do. They agree that the historical Jesus most likely existed. "Tacitus wrote well after Jesus is said to have died" So? He's our main source for vast tracts of even earlier history too. So do we throw him out on that stuff too? No, we use him critically and assess his information. As we do with this. "the vast majority of scholars agree that Tacitus got his information about Jesus from Christians" They do? I've read the scholarship on this extensively. Some do. Others don't. And the case for him doing so is pretty weak. He despised Christians, he had access to better and more trusted sources (Jewish aristocrats in his social circle) and nothing in what he says indicates a Christian source (no mention of miracles, rising from the dead etc.) He also disliked hearsay. "could already have been interpolated" Virtually no-one thinks that. The language is Tacitean, the style is Tacitean and the idea a Christian interpolator would write such a scornful reference and resist the urge to have a Roman praise Jesus is fanciful. "the evidence is not beyond reproach." - Welcome to ancient history. The evidence here, however, is solid enough to conclude they were talking about someone known to be a recent historical figure.

@@JopJio "none of them was as big as Jesus in the Gospels" On the contrary, they were so much bigger that the Romans had to turn out large units of troops to deal with several of them. Even the exaggerated Jesus of the gospel accounts was small fry compared to that. They say things like "and so he became famous through all of Galilee". Galilee was postage stamp sized backwater region even by Jewish standards. Even the exaggerated Jesus was a nobody. "and all the miracles like the zombies " Now you're muddling up "did a historical Jesus exist" with the different question of "did a historical Jesus exist and do the supernatural things the gospels claim". Keep those goalposts where they are thanks.

A Jesus Mythicist - a fringe idea that there was no historical Jesus at all and that he is a purely mythical figure.

PEDOPHILIA aMeriKKKKKaS Favorite PASTIME PEDOPHILIA aMeriKKKKKaS Favorite PASTIME PEDOPHILIA aMeriKKKKKaS Favorite PASTIME PEDOPHILIA aMeriKKKKKaS Favorite PASTIME PEDOPHILIA aMeriKKKKKaS Favorite PASTIME PEDOPHILIA aMeriKKKKKaS Favorite PASTIME PEDOPHILIA aMeriKKKKKaS Favorite PASTIME PEDOPHILIA aMeriKKKKKaS Favorite PASTIME PEDOPHILIA aMeriKKKKKaS Favorite

​@Sextus666 To my knowledge (and I could be wrong, I'm happy to be corrected), this also often but not always involves Jesus being a very deliberate, deceptive amalgam of various deities from around the Mediterranean and Southwest Asia, especially Greek, Roman, and Egyptian gods like Dionysus, Horus, and Mithras. Emperor Constantine is frequently invoked as the mastermind behind this whole scheme, despite no evidence supporting any of this nonsense. Very much something conspiracy theorists gravitate towards.

@@Sextus666 did not know you had a second channel, Tim! Still pretty nice to see you on here

@@chansesturm7103 It is a fringe idea in the sense that the majority of scholars reject it - however it's not crazy. If you read the peer-reviewed work "On the Historicity of Jesus" you'll find that the situation is not clear cut. Yes a number of scholars have a problem with this book and I get that but at the same time there are some very good points in that book about the credibility of the evidence we have for Jesus actually existing. It really is a matter of probability no matter how much some people would like it to be a slam dunk. Personally I think Jesus probably existed (in the sense that the figure in the NT is very loosely based on a real person in some way) but I wouldn't say definitely.

" the 3 texts, you assert are all about the story of Jesus" Nonsense. Tacitus gives a clear who, what, when and where about the man Jesus, clearly anchoring him in a recent historical time and place. Josephus' Jesus-James reference in Bk XX identifies James by reference to his brother in a passing aside. James and Josephus were contemporaries who lived in the same small city and Josephus was 25 and closely connected to the events of James' execution. These are not just "references to the story of Jesus". Do better.

Yes, I clearly pointed out they are entirely about the story of Jesus that circulated after his death, but they are also legitimate sources to mine for evidence regarding who the historical Jesus could have been. You may not want those later traditions to constitute evidence, but that's precisely what they are. There are absolutely zero hidden apologetics taking place, you're just trying to rationalize why your own dogma should be considered more likely.

This is historical record, not apologetics. Dan is saying that independent attestations to Jesus of Nazareth's existence are on record. They don't prove anything about Jesus except that he existed, was an itinerant preacher from some hamlet in Judea, and was executed. That's all. The sources say nothing about any question of his actual divinity (which *would* be apologetics), only that he had followers who made him into a cult figure.

I'm not trying to argue. But, your video could have ended at exactly the 21 sec. mark, Mak. I'm inviting you to contemplate why that answer was unsatisfactory to you. I did use the word apologetics to get a rise out of you ... but I think the comparison is not too unfair. As to your addenda, I think the Pliny reference is quite believable and fits into what we know about the history of the times. I find all claims from Josephus suspect. If Josephus knew and believed re an important figure who claimed to be "the Christ," he would have written much more about him in general and not in the brief asides that seem more likely to have been inserted by others. Especially, as you know, since he was writing for a Greek/Roman audience, he would not have thrown out "the Christ" without much more explanation. But, your specific dig at mythicists here is unfair and uncalled for. I'm not aware of ANY mythicist who believes accepting all the Josephus dicta about Jesus weakens the mythicist hypothesis. There are no mythicists who want to wish those passages away. Those passages are very suspect by themselves, regardless of anyone's belief that myth-making is the best hypothesis as to where the Jesus story (like the Moses story, and the God story) came from. I do really enjoy your work and respect you as a scholar who can talk to lay persons like myself.

@@stephenleblanc4677 " If Josephus knew and believed re an important figure who claimed to be "the Christ," he would have written much more about him in general and not in the brief asides" This assumes that (i) Jesus was an important figure and (ii) Josephus would have thought of him as such. Both are far from clear. If we compare the TF with other mentions of similar figures in Josephus, it's about normal. So, no. "he would not have thrown out "the Christ" without much more explanation." Why not? He refers to other people, places and things by what they were "called" without any explanation at all. " I'm not aware of ANY mythicist who believes accepting all the Josephus dicta about Jesus weakens the mythicist hypothesis. " Really? Strange then that they write vast tracts trying to debunk them. " There are no mythicists who want to wish those passages away. " Paging Dr Carrier! "Those passages are very suspect by themselves," Yet the consensus of actual Josephus scholars is that the first is partially authentic and the second is wholly so. Have you read the literature on this?

It is true that almost all manuscripts we have are copies produced in Catholic monasteries, with numerous transcription mistakes and out-and-out alterations. It is quite likely that any given line of any consequence was doctored. For example, the bits about torturing and Pilate were likely inserted. But as there is no way to prove most alterations, they are "moot" and rarely discussed. In Josephus, though, we know the TF was inserted by Eusebius because nobody else wrote anything the way Eusebius did, and we know where he plagiarized it from, and the story it was plopped into makes no sense with it in but does without. We know "James, brother of Jesus called Christ" was doctored because the whole story makes no sense unless it originally said "brother of Jesus son of Damneus", which Jesus appears without introduction in the immediately following paragraph; and because we know Josephus would not say "called Christ" without explaining to his Roman audience what a "Christ" was and why they should care if he was one.

It's Pliny the Younger not the Elder, and he saved copies of correspondence with Emperor Trajan, numbering to 121 letters (just googled it so I might be off on the number). The letter from Pliny concerning treatment of Christians to Emperor Trajan and Trajan's reply are a small part and fit right in to the collection. Those two letters are not pro-Christian, and in fact indicate -- contrary to the claims of apologists -- that the Roman authorities had no interest in the content of Christian theology. They cared about illegal assemblies, not resurrections.

@@brygenon its pro Christian in the since that it makes Christians look virtuous, anyone with half a brain can tell that the stories are fake there written by someone else completely and the story line is of one person talking to another and talking about Christians in a way that brags about how good Christians are because they will gladly die for there faith they wont waver in there faith even until death and blablabla Its in order to build a good reputation for believers .

History is not a religion where scholar « priests » issue decrees and excommunicate heresies. It is based on the scientific method.

@@chefchaudard3580 No, history is not based on the scientific method, though in recent times historians have employed scientific techniques where applicable. If you've not seen it, I recommend William Propp's lecture, "What was the Exodus?" which is easy to find on-line. He goes into methodology so far that in examining whether the Exodus was historical, he talks more of Thucydides than of Moses.

@@brygenon history is based on the historical method. Which is derived from the scientific method.

The letter of Publius Lentulus and the writings attributed to Pilate are all generally regarded as later forgeries. Early Christians had no regard for truth and made up masses of fiction.