People talking about someone decades after the fact doesn't mean someone existed.. Paul had a so called hallucination .

The Life of Brian is probably more accurate in the actual rise of the cult of Jesus and Christianity than any believer would ever want to contemplate. Comedy gold indeed. It's one of the funniest movies ever made.

@@jdjones4825 Ya but it was 2000 years ago so that's really our evidence that any ancient historical figures existed some historian wrote is down some time, Jesus probably existed his 12 apostles went in pairs in 6 different directions some to India some to Rome some to Ethiopia 40 years after jesus's death the first gosepsl were written by the apostles followers writing down what they'd said so it's not just this one guy paul it's 12, also it would be a bit bizare if they made the whole thing up as a joke said it to people who didn't take kindly to it got martyred and then 2000 years later it's the worlds leading religion

@@smoutube1197we don't know if the deciples scriptures are legitimate and even if they are I think once the paul edits occurred the Christian branch of Judaism was eternally "bastardised" from its original free flowing sentiments..

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

Don’t disagree with you, but I do wonder if you’re aware that people possessing more knowledge than world experts is the very basis of YT :-)

You do know that there are only so many books on this subject and anybody can read them and have an opinion about them just as valid as this professor. Most are on the internet.

@@paulryan5150 OK, but being a professor is way above the level of "reading all the books". She spends her life attending conferences, reading academic papers from all over the world, doing original research in museums, writing papers, which are then peer reviewed. She'll be up-to-date on all the latest ideas and will be expected to have an informed opinion on them and she'll also be asked to review them. She's probably able to read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. She's been doing this for decades. She might even have to do some teaching! If you're not an academic, you don't have access to this world.

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.

@@FleurPillager Helen has a lot of content on UKposts and has written a lot of books

It depends who you mean, Julius Caesar and Alexander the great are super-well attested, i.e numerous historians, in Caesar´s case things he himself wrote, there are also several coins and inscriptions. We wouldn´t expect that for Jesus, as if he existed he was a relatively minor thinker. The thing is Jesus is in a different reference class, i.e he is a divine being and most divine beings are not based on real people.That means we need exceptionally good evidence to be sure that Jesus was a real person.

@@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I publicly declare that you’re a divine being. Now we need exceptionally good evidence to be sure you’re a real person.

There are no historical accounts. A couple of guys a generation or two afterwards who claim to be his inheritors of authority are hardly unbiased sources

​@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I completely disagree. There is enough in the New Testament that are not fanciful stories of miracles etc to believe these are actual people. As mentioned, the best evidence is the crucifixion in that it would make no sense to make up a religion on that basis. There is plenty of other very good circumstantial reasons to mean the default is that he was real. Whether we know a single thing about him other than that he was crucified is another matter entirely.

Sadly Atheist with Argue over anything that claims Christ Was actually a Real Person. Making her fair game.

that shows she is not fit for the job.

@@MrCopyrat It's lucky you are not in charge of a university!

As an atheist, I despair at the levels some people go to to assert he didn't exist. It is pure wishful thinking. If you use Occam's razor, it is far far more likely that a ten-a-penny preacher was crucified and then his supporters spun the story in a way that resonated with people, than the idea that a group of people purposely invented a logically inconsistent story based around a guy being crucified. It literally makes no sense.

I'd like to remind you that history is not a political numbers game, and everything not written AT THE TIME is not valid evidence of anything, but gossip and spin.

I deny his existence

😊 pop pop

@@87tinman then he will deny you. Repent brother, do you really think you’re perfect?

He existed just as much as the other thousands of guys named jesus existed. Throw in a bunch of writers and storytellers (with various agendas) and you've got entertaining fairy tales at the very least.

@@LP-jn4tw Throw in a few messianic expectations and you have a rock and roll band.

No, actually, they're not. But for some strange reason, we give Jesus a pass on actual evidence.

@@steveofthewildnorth7493no, actually, we don’t. Fortunately most people aren’t ideologically obsessed atheists who want to contort history to suit their own purposes.

@@steveofthewildnorth7493 Xtian apologists do but critical biblical scholars who do scholarship based on evidence do think a traveling apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jesus was around at the time and had a following. It obviously does not mean Christian teachings themselves are true, just that he was probably a guy who existed. Look up "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?" by Dan McClellan on UKposts.

I take your argument further. The Bible as with any other major religious books for the differing religions are all based on stories told long before the in this case the Bible, was written, edited, re written, re edited all long before we have the King James Bible of today.

Was she wild back then?

Was she assuming crap then too?

Was she guessing at the life story of fictional characters then too?

@@dh7314 Do you think other historical figures are fictional too? Dido? Henry the 8th?

Well, there's Joshua in English, Jussi in Finnish, Giosue in Italian, Iosua in Romanian, aaand so on. Not Jesus exactly, but then according to the video, Jesus wasn't named Jesus either 😅

It's because in Spain in the 1500s there arose the last name ''De Jesus'' (which means ''Of Jesus'' in Spanish) This last name became very popular in Spain and so people in Spain got used to seeing ''Jesus'' in people's names. And so by the 1700s some people just started naming boys ''Jesus'' and it became a common name in Spain and other Spanish speaking places.

@@AleksiJoensuu Giosue, Iosua, Jussi, all just mean ''Josepth''. not Jesus. Are you saying that ''Jose'' in Spanish means Jesus too?

@@robiking011 Did you watch this video? If not, see 0:38 - 0:52.

@@AleksiJoensuu What does that have to do with anything? She never says that Giosue, Iosua, Jussi all mean Jesus.

There 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.

Yes and Paul himself persecuted early Christians before his conversion.

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.

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.

Who?

Do you realize how many times the word "probably" figured into the conclusions you've drawn?

@@pirththee Do you realise it's impossible to talk about anybody without probabilities, let alone somebody 2000 years in the past?

@@andrasszabo1570 Here's a phrase that is helpful in situations like you're describing. "I don't know" It's a quaint little phrase that trumps all probabilities and suppositions..

@@pirththeewhat? Are you saying it’s NOT probably true that Mohammed split the moon in half, Joseph Smith found gold plates and Olifat causes mischief in Micronesia? Well, as the first MusMormOliest, I can say that those things ABSOLUTELY, 100% happened*. *probably

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

That's how the gospels tell it, but they're a biased source. The other sources we have just don't give details about it - Josephus just says there was a preacher called Jesus who got executed. (and had a big following that didn't dissolve after his death.) The general idea that the politically powerful folks in the area didn't want him starting a revolt does make sense, though.

They could have him put to death for blasphemy, ie stoned to death, but as he seemingly avoided that, then they used first Herods and then Pilates fear of insurrection to have him dealt with under civil law rather than religous law. Judea and the whole of the Levant was a powder keg, and Pilate would not want to be seen as the person that allowed the whole thing to go up, so if he deemed Jesus to be an instigator of Jewish Independence ie a messiah, then he would want to suppress that very quickly.....so false witnesses were probably used to convince Pilate that Jesus preached insurrection and independence from Rome......nothing about him being King or his religeous views.

There is no contemporary evidence to suport any of this.

​@jeffmartin5419 Josephus was a Jewish historian, and the mainstream Jews considered Jesus a heretic. To claim that the gospels are biased as historical documents, but that counterclaims written by someone with an opposing ideology are not is intellectually dishonest.

​@wiretamer5710 the gospels and writings of Paul are contemporary historical documents. Whether or not you believe they are divinely inspired is irrelevant. The fact is they are part of the historical record, and they were written within living memory of the events described.

It is quite common theology and has been for more than 200 years now.

@andreascj73 what is the point of your comment? I go online and make a positive comment, you don't know anything about me, and your instinct is to condescendly come on to point out something I already know? Just keep your mouth shut buddy, and move on.

@@mike9512 Nothing condescending in my comment. But this is common theological knowledge. It would have been the same if you were surprised by some common medical knowledge and thought it refreshing being a former football coach or something, and you were told by a doctor that it is common knowledge. Instinct? There is no instinct in replying to a comment, mate.

@@andreascj73 Ask a mate to reread your response. It does legit look like your instinct was to condescend. Your follow-up makes it look even more so.

@@BadgerUKvideo I actually don't care how it appears tbh. Common knowledge among theologians is common knowledge among theologians.

I dunno, I’d prefer someone inexperienced on camera to look past me but talk comfortably than getting unnerved looking down the lens. It takes practice to get good at that.

The Jews were not allowed to administer capital punishment under the Romans. The gospels say that the Jews incited Pilate and the Romans to crucify him by charging him rebellion against Rome.

Blasphemy was the temple authorities acussation. But he was presented as a rebell against Rome to Pilatos. That Is why pilatos first really doesnt care, and the reason jesus Is mocked as a false king of the jews. A messiah Is both a religious and polítical figure.

Another way you can read this from the eyes of Apostle Paul is that although you are right that he shouldn’t have been hanged on a tree for blasphemy, God purposefully made it so so he can rightfully redeem us from the curse of the law as it is written in Galatians 3:13 - ”Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus” Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says “a hanged man is cursed by God”.

It's a story

You forgot about the thieves crucified near Jesus.

Throughout history, artists have rendered images of Jesus in their own context. Their are Native American images of Native Jesus, European images of European Jesus, Asian images of Asian Jesus, etc. Prior to the globalization of the 20th century, people lived in a much more insular world. When they heard stories, they would transfer them to their own context. Especially in a world of extremely limited literacy, art was used to tell stories in a way that people would understand.

This is certainly a hot take, and not one that people have been pointing out for my whole life...

Not true, the hellenic Mediterranean wasn't the same gene pool as now. You're looking at today: 2,000 of intermarriage later. Wind the clock back. Do the effort.

@@TheLastAssaultman0351 And yet there are facts. Accuracy. Not emotion. It is well known that white Europeans made depictions of christ look like what they wished he looked like. Obviously, inaccurate for racist reasons. Get real man. Facts are the only thing that is important. I could not care less about your emotions.

'inaccurate for racist reasons', well definitely not in the Middle Ages when art (paintings, statues etc.) depictions of Jesus were made to tell Biblical stories to a local crowd.

She's Professor of Christian Origins and New Testament at The University of Edinburgh

😂😂😂

They certainly were by the early Empire.

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.

It was simply the Greek translation of his name, nothing more, nothing less. It is the same as my name Iain, which derives from the Greek Ioannes, that comes from Hebrew Yohanan (God is gracious) and reason of J being writen I in greek, reason why there are so many deviation of my name.....Ioane, Eion, Ion, Jon, John, Jan, Johannes plus plenty more.

@@iainrendle7989 As in "Yeshua" in Hebrew does have a religious significance, the fact that it means "savior" could be significant and there was a belief that there was an archangel called "yeshua" who was God´s right hand man.

She nowhere says this. Yes, examinibg Jesus's life is based on assumptions. But there is nothing wrong with making assumptions and trying make the most probable scenario.

@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 She says this right in the first 25 percent of the video after mentioning Jesus' crucifixion. 2 different sources mention it, so she says in a convoluted way that it must be true. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying her logic is ridiculous. with her logic we can talk in the same way about Zeus or Hercules or Robin Hood

@@VinnieG- It's not the same. Zeus wa snever claim to be human in first place. Robin is character from folklore.

Whats the alternative that 12 guys met up and made up a elaborate scam spent the rest of their life peddling it facing persecution never asking for personal favours and ultimalty getting killed then a christian hunter named paul has a road to damascus moment and helps spread it as the second generation of christians rise writing down what the 12 apolstles said in over 60 differnt gospels in 60 differnt places also risking life and limb under roman persecution to spread their religion that seems more ridiculous

I believe he existed, but I'm sorry someone has spun you a yarn. This doesn't exist.

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?

Yes, you could but it would be rather imprecise.

Not that phrase exactly; leave off the apostrophe in “Christians.”

You could have stopped with "Early Christians want to imagine", because that says it all.

@@pirththeeyeah, that says it all! Ancient writers wrote things!!! Why so any more!?!?!

@@JohnD808 "Early Christians want to imagine" as the phrase used not "wrote things". What's with you trying to rewrite the sentence now?

Good luck finding objectivity on this subject.

He's mentioned in the Pauline Epistles about 20 yrs after his death. The scholarly consensus is that a traveling apocalyptic preacher named Jesus existed and had a following but obviously the religious stuff and miracle claims are unprovable.

@@preciousmourning8310 Can one cite those that comprise ones scholarly consensus?.

@@pirththee Look up the critical biblical scholar Dan McClellan here on UKposts, he has a PhD in the Bible and the cognitive science of religion. Especially relevant is his video: "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?".

@@preciousmourning8310 That's one source I believe you talked about a consensus which implies more than one..

Exactly he was probably a nut leading a small cult preaching against the romans and was executed like all the other people who were doing similar things at the time as the romans saw this as trying to incite rebellion among the Jewish population. His later followers were successful in crafting his story to blame the Jews so they could then be accepted as a religion in the Roman Empire.

Philo never wrote about John the Baptist. the High Priests or Roman Governors of Judea other than Pontius Pilate so that's not much of an argument.

There are many other sources from Roman and Judaic writers with no interest in Christianity and they nevertheless reported the life of Jesus. There's no doubt Jesus is a historical figure in the sense that he was a preacher in Judea, he died on the cross, and this happened during Tiberius's reign. @Tsumami__ I'm not even a Christian, you genius

Probably many street preachers with that name were roaming around with small bands of followers lol

@@antoniousai1989No. your belief does not make him a historical figure. And religious apologists are not historians.

Scholars believe there was a Jewish man named Jesus who traveled around in that time period and had apocalyptic teachings but obviously those miracles are not something that can be proven.

That IS the whole point: nothing was written down when he lived. Despite his “miracles”…

@@TheStijg I find this very bizarre. A person with powerful, god-like skills and abilities was never mentioned. Nobody abducted him to use his skills. He could resurrect the dead. How incredible is that? He could change one substance into another. That's incredible. The Roman Empire was very bureaucratic, they wrote about everything worth mentioning and a person with magical abilities was certainly worth noting. The gospels were written by people who had never seen Jesus in person. Never. They weren't even close to him.

@@oldi184 You didn't listen her - there were many figures of miracle performers. Jesus wasn't so special to outsiders. It was his followers that made mark on history.

@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 I think Jesus did not exist. She often said that there is no good, hard evidence that Jesus Christ was real. And why the New Testament was written in Greek? Why not in Aramaic?

No idea what you mean. None is talking here jokes.

Would depend on what they ate for dinner the previous day.

According to the gospels, Thomas definitely believed only after he was raised from the dead.

The Romans who kept metuculous records also never recorded a census at that time.

@@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'.

@@lizzieh5284 see the reply sowing the roman census

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.

Wrong completely. The Horus Manure has long been debunked to the point anyone repeating might as well say they also believe in UFOs. For one, here was how Horus was actually Conceived. "After Osiris' death, Isis gathered up the pieces of his body and brought him back to life long enough to CONCEIVE Horus. According to some versions of the myth, Isis used her magical powers to resurrect Osiris and then COPULATED with him, resulting in the conception of Horus. In other versions, Isis used a magical spell to create a PHALLUS for Osiris, allowing her to conceive Horus without actual physical contact. This mythological detail highlights the importance of Isis' magical powers and her role as a powerful female deity." Horus wasn't even born from a Virgin. Isis CLEARLY had to knock up Osiris Reanimated Corpse to guve birth to Horus.

So many crackheads here

Nothing that this person says is actual, truthful, plausible. Historical.....

Show me the bones Sasquatch

Get a hobby. Learn to paint. Houses

@@drew8305What are you on about?

Same here! His impact on the world is enormous, up there with the likes of Caesar and Alexander the Great.

I think you somewhat missed the point.

What is had to do with anything?

I'm surprised she didn't wear a tinfoil hat

The gospel which talks about it it's a forgery from the XIX century.

The gospel which talks about it it's a forgery from the XIX century.

@@infozencentre Sorry. I don't understand.

@@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?

Lol ,🤣as long as your convinced

🏅 gold star for mental gymnastics

yeah, no lulz

Also, don’t forget the evidence in Pompeii. Also, saying their is no evidence of Jesus is like saying theirs no evidence that Caesar lived. We believe Caesar lived because we see the evidence in the record as a result of his life and it’s implications. I love how people want to apply a different standard to Jesus then they do any other historical figures.

Lots of Reddit atheists in these comments

Not really. No one cares about beatles

Well we turn the other cheek and that's a quality I admire

A soft target? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA yes, the most brutal and controlling, and largest religious denomination in the world is totally “a soft target”. Give me a break. Yall are always oppressing while claiming to be oppressed. This is why the world is quickly becoming done with Christianity.

@@SassyUnicorn86Christians never turn the other cheek. Considering your deity told you to enslave other nations and wipe them out to the last infant “dash the infants against the rocks” - and to be JOYOUS while yall do so….no. Turning the other cheek is not what Christians are about.

Of course they are expected, you've had thousands of years to prove your religion is true and you have nothing, either get some evidence or stop whining when people call you out on your lies. As for a Muslim Q&A, Muslims are not like you. Muslims do not go online, talk shit about their prophet, and then wonder why people don't like them.

Muhammad? there is more proof that he was real than there is of Jesus being a real person. Either way, God isn't real.

There are lots of videos about Mohammed.

Lmaoooo nooo

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Genius.

Right? This woman seems like someone who knows just enough to be wrong. Yes, African slaves in the South all wanted George Washingtons wig makers business card, too.

I doubt anyone in the Levant would have given it a second thought.

What a random takeaway

@@cleverusername9369 So much for relevant content.

She might be, I've done a little bit of filming before where I've been interviewed about my work and you talk to the person opposite you rather than direct to the camera.

I agree,its irritating.

I didn’t say the content wasn’t relevant I just found it distracting

Look up Titus Kennedy. This is what he does, he is a biblical historian

I wonder if you’d extend that explanation to Mohamed Atta?

Tens of millions of people died in WW2 because they believed a lie. The willingness to die for a cause is not evidence for the validity of that cause.

@@PaulHaigh072 a lot of people have done impulsive suicidal things but the disciples were not impulsive nor suicidal they were horribly killed because they taught the world about Jesus.

People were willing to surrender all their worldly possessions and pleasures because they were inspired by the Buddha, but I doubt he actually conquered a supposed cycle of reincarnation. Most of the New Testament was written decades after Jesus was executed, drawn from oral traditions about Jesus' life that were exaggerated or invented as they spread from person to person. Stories about martyrs grow and change the same way, just like how the Roman emperors barely noticed Christians until Diocletian organized a specifically anti-Christian persecution. The Romans killed people for disrespecting the Emperor and the Roman gods, not for being Christian, and there were many groups besides Christians who the Romans went after.

@@edblough4134 So were the followers of every religion. This doesn't make religions true. You make a false dichotomy between these disciples willing martyrdom and Christianity being a lie. Could they not have just been mistaken in their faith as, presumably, you believe Jain, Buddhist and Sikh martyrs to have been?

You cannot know wheter God exist or not. None can. And she wasn't talking about Jesus as God, but as historical figure. If you agree he might exist, what is your problem? She nowhere tells you to belive he was deity.

​@@xunqianbaidu6917 It´s a debate in academia, the majority are historicist but to put it bluntly you don´t even know your own case if you haven´t read the opposition. I have read Carrier´s work and logically it is very sound. I think the case for historicity has been overstated. I think he shows an interesting new light on Paul´s letters in particular.

@@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn It's not, Carrier is just an internet blogger not an academic and his "cosmic sperm bank" explanation of Romans 1:3 is absurd.

@@tomasrocha6139 yeah, except there are references to God extracting people's seed. That's just a tongue in check way of refererring to It.

@@xunqianbaidu6917 "They are not even in the debate" Wrong, his book was peer reviewed and meets scholarly standards, he's part of the debate and there are other experts Who are mythicists or undecided on the issue (Bob Price, Carl Ruck, Héctor Avalos, Thomás Brodie etc).

@@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn No, it simply means he's descended from King David.

Wow, that's extremely patronizing.

@@LeandroCapstick You say that, but I am from a distant far off time where it was acceptable to compliment a person, sadly we live in strange times where positive comments are construed as insults, I won’t be changing my ways for anyone though, I’ll keep on saying it as I see it, eventually everything will go full circle and the world will catch back up with me 👍🙂

Well, if you believe the countless relics that Catholic and Orthodox venerate, then there is archaeological evidence of him.

Even if we assume that he only got popular after death, there's no chance people wouldn't worship every wooden door Jesus made.

@@LeandroCapstick The Escorial in Spain has the largest collection in the world. They have tours. Faith might move mountains but trust me you want to take the bus up that mountain to see it.

@@pirththee Hell will freeze over before faith moves mountains.

How do you know his disciples only mentioned him after 2 decades.....you do realise that they like 98% of the population were illiterate, even most of the priests spoke the Torah from having it drilled in to them rather than actually reading it. Why do you think that the first gospels were writen in Greek, rather than their native tongue? Have you studied Romes history, or how Europe, the Levant, Asia Minor and North Africa imploded post the fall of Rome and the impact that had economically, educationally, society wise, return of segration and isolation, and tribe/clan politics. How much of what was writen do you think survived over the next 400-900 years, and what did survive how much is actually the original unbastardised versions. How many original copies of Harry Potter book 1 will still exist in 900 years, and what will future people make of it, now put a world cataclysm in the middle, whereby all computers and storage devices died, over that period 90% of us were not educated, electricity was not available, and therefore places to safely store documents correctly did not exist......now how many copies would still exist. That is exactly what the dark ages were, and the impact what documents remained, let alone still remains was the loss of probably 99%+ of all records made.

Considering they are based on the gospels, maybe learn those first?

Yes there are experts on lots of historical figures.

@@422katieleigh The Archbishop of Canterbury? The Pope of Rome?

@@user-xm4ep1rl1j They are religious leaders, not historical experts

Professor of divinity.

@@422katieleigh If you don't know Jesus' religion - you can't know Jesus. Go back to the beginning and start over.

Yes. And I bet you wouldn't have any issue if they were discussing cult of ancient Egyptian gods, so what's your problem?

Because… oh there isn’t good reason 😅. Literally could’ve written contemporaneously or within a year, but no, decades later copying mythology from all the other prophets at the time 😂. Each book getting more elaborate to the point of invented earthquakes and zombies…

Historical research doesn't operate on "scientific rigor". You can test out theories in science because in science there are scientific laws that are always operating. In history, knowledge about the past has to be found out through both material evidence and written literature, that often varies on various points. It's dependent on human memory and what people think is worth writing about, hence in the field of history rigourous searching for material evidence like a person's remains or other forms of testing we could do to test scientific hypotheses isn't possible. Hence, why in the case of an obscure Jewish rabbi who preached in provincial backwaters and was only in Jerusalem for a short time before he was executed, it makes sense that any Greco-Roman historian of note wouldn't feel the need to write about him, or have even known, about him. Christianity grew after Jesus' death and became popular in the literate Greco-Roman world because of Paul's work, whose letters probably date 20-30 years after Jesus' death which is a span of time in which the people who knew Jesus or his followers would still be very much alive. A better question to be put to the test is why basic historical methodology is suspended by non-historians when talking about religion.

Absolutely right. As a Buddhist I dislike Buddhists who talk about us knowing what Buddha said and did, it was 2500 years ago in his case, we just don't know, we only know what we have now. That's what should be applied to Jesus too, and this has been the biggest cause of people getting dead in 2000 years

Our writings about the general Hannibal, the Gracchi brothers or Spartacus are from decades later, do you think that's bad evidence?

@@tomasrocha6139 I’ve no knowledge of the Gracchi brothers tbh. Hannibal has extensive archeological evidence as a leader, especially with wars and contemporaneous evidence of war campaigns. Jesus has none. Whether Hannibal mythology is exaggerated or fabricated isn’t particularly important or relevant, because we have all the supporting evidence of a warlord leader, and his tactics, whoever he was.

Yes? Jewish has always been both an ethnicity in and of itself, and the name of a religious affiliation… you’ve never heard of, for example, an Ashkenazi Jewish person?

It was in one of the gospels that the Church decided would be left out of the Bible, as were many ithers that didnt make for good PR.