These two episodes on Jesus were very good. I've been an atheist for a long time and it's the first time in decades that I've heard a discussion about Jesus that compels me to reconsider that whole story. Thank you gentlemen for two very great episodes.
What I love about this episode is that it achieves a rare feat incurrent discussion about religion, which is to be respectful and impartial. Exactly as I imagine what a perfect discussion might be
Fantastic work, thank you. Both episodes are great. Decades as a History and RE teacher make me wish I had this a long time ago. Jesus as an agent provocateur is the character I’ve always understood. Fantastic quality of discussion and good research. Keep up your brilliant work.
Huh, finally listened to the whole thing and it's interesting as a practicing Christian how Tom's views genuinely aren't very different from my own. Only difference really is Tom stays agnostic about this mixture of mystery and coincidence that I'd call "divine".
If you go to Nazareth/Galilee etc, which I did on a university trip 15 years ago, you'll notice there's still a church and a community to John the Baptist - so he still has followers who believe he was the Messiah, and not Jesus. Also, the olive trees in the 'garden of gethsemane' are 3000 years old, and still there today. So, when you travel through the landscape of Palestine its strangely eerie how features of biblical stories are still there.
Also, I heard somewhere Jesus 'the carpenter' is a mistranslation from the antiquity greek for 'mason'. And the biblical historian pointing this out, also said there's no trees in Galilee, but only an active quarry at this time supplying to the greek city nearby. Perhaps, a mason he was.
@@brianwyse5810The original term is "tekton" which means "craftsman." As I understand it that can be interpreted as everything from mason to carpenter to laborer. A couple of prominent scholars believe laborer is correct.
Consideration for upcoming episode: The French Revolution and its relationship to changes in Christianity using topics from Dominion's Chapter 16. I found it within that chapter a new look at the the context and activities surrounding the revolution.
A very interesting podcast with an even more interesting twist at the end the where Tom doesn't quite say he believes in the resurrection but implies its the best explanation we have of the disciples behaviour. My reference to Occam's Razor would produce a different result. Ill stick with Bart Ehrman and say the bigger and more outrageous the claim, the more evidence you need to support it. Still, worth a listen
reminds me of Robert Graves' 'King Jesus' - the only other alternative history I'm familiar with. Wondering if you have read that, & what you may think of it.
I'd be interested to know what Tom Holland thinks of René Girard's interpretation of Jesus aa the ultimate 'scapegoat' in the sense of his minetic theory. Has Holland commented on that?
There are contradictory accounts of what Jesus says, if anything, post crucifixion. Because if these contradictions, it is not useful to make assumptions about what if anything he said
I have a thought about the doubt expressed, about the necessity of traveling to a specfic location for the census. In 2008 we traveled from south central Manitoba Canada to what is now Russia. We traveled to a tiny village of maybe 100. There was however a very large old Church there and within the church a birth record. Our interest was for the entry of the birth of my German Grandfather in 1933 when the church was in Germany. I don't think it is all that difficult to believe that 2000 years ago having to travel (probably no more than 60 miles [National Geographic Article referred to vast majority of humans die within 60 miles from their birth place ) to the location of the record/database, really it seems like the best option logistically. Besides how would one prove their citizenship or lineage unless they were scrutinized by those who would be familiar with the facts. To the comment why would Romans care about lineage? Why would they not. Information is everything, do the governments of today not keep ridiculous details on their subjects. How else do you keep tabs on potential dissidents or ring leaders....these are just my thoughts I am by no means a historian. But I do know this fact about the distance people lived from their origins was basically universal around the world until the last 50 years.
Human history both BCE and CE revolves around almost ceaseless migration and that particular area had been a migration route since the time homo erectus. If people never travelled more than 60 miles from their birth place until 50 years ago how did Australia and the Americas become populated by Europeans?
You are right that the Romans did care about keeping these records. I read a source on one of those censuses, where the author talked about looking back through the Roman census records decades later looking for specific names.
Yes. Love your enemies, forgiveness of sin, and charity for all. Unheard of. Counterintuitive. Difficult and challenging as anything can be. And necessary. Absolute game changer.
Just want to say I never had any problem with actual Christianity, as a philosophy. I do not like most of the organizations that grew up around it however, obviously very human, greedy and power hungry. I was lucky to been raised in a small community with an Episcopal church that was 95% truly Christian and true to the faith, and not dramatic, very accepting of people. We had lovely Sundays and holiday pot lucks. Religion specifics were sometimes discussed but open mindedly. I was lucky to never have be abused or mistreated.
Christianity isn’t a philosophy it’s larger than that. Stoicism is a philosophy, platonism, Christianity is more encompassing though it contains philosophy.
@@aimowenaim I use that term to separate how I think about it from being a "religion". I don't worship the whole thing but I do think the ideals are ok.
I got halfway through one of Bart Ehrman's books. He was brought up in an American protestant tradition that believed the Bible was dictated by God and was inerrant. There are obvious inconsistencies between the four Gospels, but you would expect that. There are relatively few contested issues. All the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus. NT Wright taught theology at Oxford and was Bishop of Durham. Wright points out that we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts, more than any other ancient text. Caesar's Gallic Wars was written in the first century B.C. There are only 10 manuscripts in existence. The earliest textual evidence we have was copied 1,000 years after the original. Garry Wills is a Catholic, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, and received a doctorate in Classics from Yale. He believes there is only the Jesus of faith, and it is not worth looking too hard for the historical Jesus.
He cannot be killed prior to passover and have been present at the last supper ,(a Sedar). So how exactly does the "lamp " thing work? They were killed prior to passover
John the Baptist primed the people, Saint Paul gave them confirmation from outside Jesus' circle. Bookends, maybe necessary ones, that make it harder to explain away as a conspiracy of a few.
Dear Listeners! Are you familiar with the book: The Immortality Key by Brian C. Muraresku, and if so what do you think about it? How much credit should be given to his work? Wish you all a happy Christmas!
I think we can all agree that dating the Nativity to the census of Quirinius doesn't make sense, not only for all the reasons you rightly provide but also because it contradicts what Luke writes: 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah,… 11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, … he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15….” 26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. Therefore it would seem that both Matthew and Luke date the birth of Jesus to around the time of Herod the Great, it's just that Luke misdates the census of Quirinius - perhaps like many later scholars to this day because he was trying to "rationalise" the reason for Jesus being born in Bethlehem. But it is certainly far less rational to assume that He was born in Nazareth, regarding which there is no mention in the historical sources.
The idea that Jesus is buried in Kashmir is very interesting. But I have never understood why this would negate the belief in Resurrection. Whether Jesus survived the crucifixion or was resurrected, either way he could have travelled to India.
i think john the baptist may have been looking out for the recurring astrological convergence which heralded the flood and the passover..the people who understood astrology from sumerian star names had constructed the messiah king idea
Did I miss something two whole episodes on the life of Jesus and there’s nothing said about the fact that there’s a huge gap between his youth and the time we pick up Jesus in Galilee with his disciples.
@@flowermeerkat6827 No, he wasn't. This was an error in this podcast. Carpenter is a bad translation. Labourer would be more accurate. Not a skilled artisan, at all.
I think the stories of the Hebrew Bible will have been widely told, I would think most people in that region would have heard them told many times by many preachers. Literate though - not so much. Definitely not!
Why is the notion of the imminence of the end times so prevalent in the time of Jesus: the Jews were specially argumentative and they hated the Romans for a taxing them and that’s probably one of the major factors.
A heard a genealogist say the Bible was really the story of the house of David and after John Jesus was the heir of both branches the military and religious branch so the crown prince
Paul didn't know Jesus, everything he says comes from visions. Which ought to make his writings somewhat sceptical to say the least. There were definitely people who seem to be going around at this time performing miracles. I don't know were I read this but there is a specific quote regarding the false profits
A lot of people don't know this, I didn't for a long time. The 2 major religious authorities in Judea was the pharisees and Sadducees. The sadducees only believed in the 1st 5 books, the Torah. Genesis exodus leviticus deutoronmy and numbers. That's it, the sadduccees were old school, its only Moses to them. The pharisees believe in later prophets like Isiah, Daniel, and the rest of the old testament. That's 1 reason why the sadduccees strait hated jesus, but some of the pharisees were question, is Jesus the Christ? The pharisees had a concept of a coming messiah. The sadducees did not, and they also didn't believe in any afterlife
The reputation of Jesus is a victim of the 4th Estate -Gossip and virulent rumour. He's alleged to have said He could destroy the Temple and raise it in 3 days. He doesn't usually make promises he can't keep. There is an earthquake over Passover weekend, but the Temple isn't destroyed. The Establishment is another matter.
The census was not 9f people but of property. Joseph was poor and would not have owned property in Bethlehem. Nor would there be Inns people didn't travel around like that.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a small and highly exclusive sect of deeply zealous and very apocalyptic monks who lived in closed communities that had very little contact with the wider Jewish world. I don't think you can apply their mindset to other Jews, any more than you can say that the Amish or the Mennonites are a representative sample of Christians in the modern USA.
I'm a little disappointed, I thought this was going to be a podcast that would actually discuss the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth within scholarship. I am 4:55 minutes into this video and the dismissive way history is being handled is utterly ridiculous and nowhere near scholarly. "One of the most important inscriptions from the Roman era is the Res Gestae (Acts or Achievements) of Augustus. It is an autobiography in which Augustus describes his achievements, of which he writes "In my sixth consulship [28 BC], with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I made a census of the people. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-one years. In this lustration 4,063,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A second time, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius, [8 BCE.] I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A third time, with the consular imperium, and with my son Tiberius Caesar as my colleague, [14 AD] I performed the lustrum in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius. In this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll."
load of the Jesus myth is lifted straight from the cult of Mithras. 25th Dec, kings worshiping. god of light, divine incarnation, ascension to heaven, bread and wine are key to the rituals, as is baptism.
A deeper reading, and more understanding, of the bible would have helped this episode. Perhaps a reading of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" would of helped this effort. Otherwise a good effort!
carpenter comes from the greek tekton but this is a similar word as teknon meaning infant.in one gospel it says 'carpenter son of god' using a different greek word for son...i get the feeling tekton might be a deliberate spelling mistake or wordplay..john mchugh explains the nativity story from astrology where the sumerian name for the star regulus means 'infant'
With great respect, I feel compelled nonetheless to state that I believe historians make a grave error when they discriminate between so-called "supernatural" and "natural" events. What our current version of a dominant cultural paradigm fails to understand, it brands as "supernatural, and therefore completely discounts as fanciful, and only those theories and events that can be explained by our western materialist worldview are accepted as plausible. Throughout the vast majority of human history, there has been no distinction between the natural and the allegedly "supernatural" and therefore all phenomena which occur in human perception can be taken together to form a coherent reality. The fact is that we live in a world that is far, far more nuanced, subtle, and filled with the miraculous, the strange and the magical than our current grey-faced academics and lab technicians can even dream of, and we interact with that world every day. By excluding the so-called "supernatural" one excludes the very aspects of the human experience that are most important, most meaningful, and most beautiful. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Jesus did not perform the very miracles he is credited with performing. At the same time, I would argue that those who are overly impressed by the story of Jesus, those who believe that it has no parallel in history, are simply ignorant of the lives of the Rishis, and the lives of the various Hindu saints to have walked amongst people during the ages that followed. Even in these materialistic modern times, living saints who are every bit the equal of, if not the superior to, Jesus have walked and some walk among us still. Their teachings are profound, and their miraculous deeds are real. They are here to prove to humanity what kind of world we really live in, and to show the way for the average person to reconnect with the divine. There is nothing supernatural about this, for nature herself is an emanation of the divine source, and is therefore holy and alive. Apologies if that strikes a discordant note for some readers. I simply felt that it needed to be said. All the best to all concerned, --N.
There is a reason not to believe the miracles. We don't see miracles today. They saw them then because they had a pre scientific worldview that couldn't explain what they observed around them
This is a brilliant analysis, but in no way does it undermine the meaning of Christ, which is transcendent truth. Ancient stories are always embellished with each verbal account as they were handed down, before being written. But Tom asks from where this central idea of a supreme power, a power which transcends all military power derives. Isn’t that obvious? It comes the central concept in Judaism of God. Christianity extends this concept from the 13 tribes of Judah to all mankind. This idea, as Tom points out, was hugely threatening to the power that then existed - Rome. Of course, it eventually completely overcame Rome to the extent that Rome became the home, centre - and a byword - for Christianity itself. There’s a thought for Christmas - hallelujah!
Well reasoned analysis & wide ranging discussion of a rich topic, gentlemen. It would be nice if Dom wasn't forever stepping on Tom's dialogue because Tom's final thought is often overridden thus. I find the articulateness of both scholars here valuable & resent missing any of it. That said, one difference of opinion: the most humiliating form of execution IMHO is impalement, especially vertically.
The sleeping guards theory is ridiculous when thought about. "While I was asleep and not conscious of anything going on around me, I was able to identify His disciples and that they removed the seal on the stone and the stone and grabbed His body and left. So I reported it to you."
Huh... What is more plausible: (a) all these well crafted stories and parables come from a team of learned writers that research and collect them over the years from traditions beyond their time and place or (b) they come from the illiterate son of a Nazareth carpenter that invents them while walking in the desert... Mhhh... difficult to tell.
You've had geniuses emerge from nowhere, autodidacts, et al in history before. Plus, Jesus' knowledge was quite folksy, you know? I think it makes sense.
If such was the case then presumably he would have called himself a Christian, he does not. He is a Jew, who is relating to Jewdism. He isn't out there preaching to other cultures. If he is how you're attempting to portray him would he not be preaching to all cultures?
Christ absolutely identifies Himself as God. ‘Truly truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM’ is unequivocal. With this declaration, He not only arrogates a distinctly Jewish name for God (first appearing jn the burning bush in exodus) but more importantly, He claims an eternal nature: before Abraham ‘was’ (in the past) I Am, I was in the present tense then, as I am now, because Christ never ‘was’ He is eternally in the present & the future.
In modern nonduality circles, the "I am" is seen as awareness, as in "I am" is awareness or life, and every human can know herself as the "I am". So many think that's the "I am" in Bible.
Which translation? Who wrote it? How long after Christs’ death? All these questions have to be answered, then you’ll find the degrees to which the accounts differ. There is no 1 gospel truth.
The four gospels contradict each other in numerous places. You are quoting from John, the last and most "sexed up" gospel. The earlier gospels are quite different.
@th8257 not one contradiction... different accounts does not mean they are a contradtion. If you and I both witness something... or if we both write accounts of what other people witnessed, of course our writtings will be different. Some things might be there and others that aren't. Doesn't mean the essence of them are antithetical.
The carpenter thing is not right. Bad translation. Better description would be labourer. Definitely not a skilled artisan. Also, bodies were left to rot on the cross. They were not taken down and tended by loved ones. Being left to rot was part of the punishment. There was no tomb. Unless we are to believe that the Romans decided to let the body be removed from the cross, because someone asked them nicely. Didn't happen.
None of the "proof" for anyone named Jesus holds any water. The entry in Josephus that is commonly cited was added by someone who was a religious fanatic (a fact that is generally accepted by scholars today). And the Gospels are not history. The earliest was written at least 50 years after the years when "Jesus" would have lived - when people back then usually lived 30-40 years. The names of each Gospel book were assigned much much later with no evidence that they were written by that person. The four books contradict each other. "Matthew" is based on "Mark", and "Luke" is a revision of "Matthew"/"Mark". There is evidence that multiple authors had their hand in what is called John. I've listened to several ot "The Rest Is history" podcasts, but this one was very disappointing. Why would they rehash old arguments that are generally not believed except in the most conservative colleges and churches? It calls into question the validity of the other podcasts - at least for me.
If it didn’t commit so many harms it would be defensible and good natured to remain respectful. But I can’t respect the crack dealer when he has established his distribution operation from within children’s playgrounds.
the empire of alexander had fallen apart.i think jesus and others before him tried to reunify the alexandrian countries and they needed a unified worldview
I love your podcast but this wasn’t the best example of objective thinking. While it’s reasonable to believe Jesus existed, you constantly gloss over irreconcilable contradictions (such as the resurrection claims which are insanely inconsistent). Then, you claim there are multiple sources and it’s weird so you think it’s reasonable to believe these things. Contradictions indicate, definitively, error in one of more of the accounts, dramatically undermining the credibility of the detail in question. You also fail to examine other reasons the evolving gospel writers have to include implausible details such as explaining why the messiah was so easily killed by his enemies or the constant shoehorning in of stories to line up with prophecies, or indeed the use of a likely real, impressive figure to further the goals of the early Jesus cult such as appealing to gentiles. You also fail to account for the now almost universally accepted belief among bible scholars that other than Mark, the gospel writers were copying each other and likely at least one other lost protosource, Q. In short, you give Waaaay too much credit to anachronistic views assuming much of the gospels are true, avoiding the responsibility a historian has to the truth. I think it would do many of your viewers well to look up a video by Ehrman explaining why many of the details of the gospels seem likely to be untrue even while Jesus’ existence and charisma are likely true
Sorry Tom but you're seriously not looking at this from the point of view that you said. You are preaching the Christianity that is written in the Bible...which in itself is beyond problematic
Too right. All the "Christians" banging on about "Jesus" all the time. Notice that no-one has every produced his birth certificate, or his driver's licence, passport records, school reports, year book entries, utility bills, nothing, They ask us to believe that he's the son of God and they don't even have a photo of the dude.
There's actually a (couple I think) good conversations between Holland and NT Wright. One online is primarily on Paul but it included an even more agnostic version of Holland...
Two brilliantly well informed people on everything from Tolkien and World War Two to the Aztecs and Alexander the Macedonian. Am surprised anyone would think they were amateurs -except in the old-fashioned sense of their love & enthusiasm for each of many topics covered.
“Jesus existed.” What is uncontested is that BELIEF in Jesus existed in the first century. That’s not the same thing as the bold assertion “Jesus existed.” The story of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus was most probably made-up (see Plutarch), but the Jewish lawgiver Jesus really existed(?). Jesus’ teaching is unique? I have found 24 gospel teachings in Cicero. Cicero was much praised by Jerome. The Stoics produced great ethical teachings mirrored in “the teachings of Jesus.” These writings were publicly available at the time the story of Jesus was written. The “kingdom of virtue” was a unique idea? What Jesus is portrayed as is as the virtuous king. Where does this idea come from? From Cyropaedia by Xenophon. To say that the teachings of Jesus were in any way unique shows an ignorance that should not be countenanced by historians. Cutting down the fruitless tree is not mentioned elsewhere in scripture? Has Holland not read Jude 11-13? “They are waterless clouds carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted;...” or, Paul in Romans 11? “For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you?” (v.21) The death of John the Baptist occurs in 36AD which is long after the supposed career and death of Jesus. (Josephus, Ant 18.5.2) A cult around John arose as a result of this event, which competed with the new cult of Jesus. John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul. In the initial conception of Christianity which Paul preached there was not seen any connection between Jesus and John because John lived and died a long time before Christianity became popular. The trouble is people (including historians like Holland) have been mesmerized by the story and have failed to ask the basic historical question; WHEN. When did the religion arise? Whether Jesus existed or not there was a year in which the religion did not exist and a year following, in which it did. (Think by analogy of Mormonism.) This is fundamental. What year was that? When did the religion kick off? And being a highly successful religion we can assume that it didn't linger for forty or so years in the wilderness. It bolted from the starting blocks. There is no good evidence that Christianity existed prior to the Roman-Jewish War.
I too was frustrated by the lack of scholarship in this podcast. Where did these sayings come from? 85% of them are plucked right of the Hebrew Bible! Most of the sayings of Jesus are copy/pasted right out of the books of Deuteronomy and Psalms.
Hi, John. Your comment is informative, and I'm hoping you can elaborate on why a successful religion would necessarily jump out of the starting blocks. That doesn't seem intuitive to me. Is it not just as likely that a religion could garner a small following, only to explode in popularity later? There are always many factors at play.
@@PartOfACompleteBreakfast What do you mean by "later?" And why would the founders of a new faith want to contain "the truth?" Their enthusiasm would fade with time not increase. The factors that led to its success were there from the beginning.
@@paulgeorge1144 The founders of a new faith would not sabotage themselves. By "later", I mean I'm curious about how long it takes a religion to gain mass popularity. Has every major world religion exploded onto the scene, or did some grow slowly?
"No. He was from Nazareth!" Really, so definite, so early. But, I will give it a bit longer... 20.00 Messiah? No mention of Messiah yet??? No doubt we will get to this and the Greek term christos (annointed one) 30.00 Glossed over the Messiah issue eith a bit of 'stretching' it serms to me. (Sidenote: the word miracle has yet to be uttered during this or the previous episode...) Strong emphasis on the memorability of the sayings which have been drummed into people WEEKLY over two thousand years. Its not surprising people remember them! "Struggling to explain? Not half! This bit is garbled and misleading...Does Joseph of A get mentioned? Conclusion: I haven't learned much here, unfortunately... Bye
Nothing historically scholarly about this accounting of Jesus. Just general knowledge that ignores the depth of understanding and aswath with opinion. Makes me consider that other historical accounting in this podcast will suffer in like manner and therefore make me historically shallow for listening. Unsubscribing and will read what real historians will write on these matters and avoid populist history from now on.
Most definitely he was a socialist he was preaching to people on earth how about the social injustices and they were striving for a new kingdom in the heavens but they lived on earth
Nuff said? 😒Are you a professional historian, brilliant lady? Why is there such a wide consensus among ATHEIST historians that Jesus did exist? I'm not spiritual in any way, but I find their arguments convincing.
Bart Eheman, perhaps the most distinguished biblical historian, has stated that the evidence for Jesus existing is fairly clear cut. What he said and did is another story. As another biblical historian, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, said "We know a man called Jesus existed. We don't know much else."
Krishna didn't exist either, but none of this matters to people who have religious mania and who are terrified of the fact that we are alone in the Universe.
Religion, like it or not, is a part of life and has been for a very long time. How can discussing this amount to "fraud"? (Tell you what though, if you're in the mood to denounce fraud, you're probably better off focusing your attention on public education and the woke lunacies passed off as reality therein.)
I thought you atheists were supposed to be open minded…. We are all people of faith but put our faith in different things- your binary thinking is similar to religious fundamentalists
As a Christian thank you for being a respectful sceptic. Your podcasts are both entertaining and informative.
Me too. Fascinating to hear a skeptical perspective on Jesus that isn't outright condemnatory and disrespectful.
These two episodes on Jesus were very good. I've been an atheist for a long time and it's the first time in decades that I've heard a discussion about Jesus that compels me to reconsider that whole story. Thank you gentlemen for two very great episodes.
You mad bro?
Give it another five minutes thought!
I have some cool aid for you to drink if you like.
@@boogerf3679 I had my nu-atheist phase decades ago, I am good.
I'm a believer ,Greek orthodox and share yr feelings
I have along time ago and I Am not mad ,just able to look beyond prejudice to a wider truth. Try it too ! @@jonathonjubb6626
What I love about this episode is that it achieves a rare feat incurrent discussion about religion, which is to be respectful and impartial. Exactly as I imagine what a perfect discussion might be
What a pleasure to listen to both Sandbrook and Holland, great podcast!
Simply my favourite podcast.
I love to learn history and you guys mix hard facts - and educated opinion - with levity and colour. Thank you.
Wonderful, thankyou.
... a simple, God bless you both.
Fantastic work, thank you. Both episodes are great. Decades as a History and RE teacher make me wish I had this a long time ago. Jesus as an agent provocateur is the character I’ve always understood. Fantastic quality of discussion and good research. Keep up your brilliant work.
Probably the best podcast you guys have done. Thank you 🙂
Huh, finally listened to the whole thing and it's interesting as a practicing Christian how Tom's views genuinely aren't very different from my own. Only difference really is Tom stays agnostic about this mixture of mystery and coincidence that I'd call "divine".
Yes, as a Christian I have to really appreciate Tom and Dom. Rarely do you hear historians take such a diplomatic stance on such a subject.
probably just has a higher IQ than your good self
Faith is a gift that some people never receive.
@@tobywaller8717or are fearful to touch, which is definitely a spirit speaking.
@@tobywaller8717faith can be delusional toby
And a Merry New Year to everyone.....^^.......
First thank Jesus!
The Wise Men are portrayed as arriving about two years after Christ's birth.
Better late than never?
If you go to Nazareth/Galilee etc, which I did on a university trip 15 years ago, you'll notice there's still a church and a community to John the Baptist - so he still has followers who believe he was the Messiah, and not Jesus. Also, the olive trees in the 'garden of gethsemane' are 3000 years old, and still there today. So, when you travel through the landscape of Palestine its strangely eerie how features of biblical stories are still there.
Also, I heard somewhere Jesus 'the carpenter' is a mistranslation from the antiquity greek for 'mason'. And the biblical historian pointing this out, also said there's no trees in Galilee, but only an active quarry at this time supplying to the greek city nearby. Perhaps, a mason he was.
Those are the Mandaeans. They also view Jesus harshly.
@@brianwyse5810The original term is "tekton" which means "craftsman." As I understand it that can be interpreted as everything from mason to carpenter to laborer. A couple of prominent scholars believe laborer is correct.
@@baarbacoa no forests in Galilee.
That is wack!!! Insane. Wow
Consideration for upcoming episode: The French Revolution and its relationship to changes in Christianity using topics from Dominion's Chapter 16. I found it within that chapter a new look at the the context and activities surrounding the revolution.
24.58 Fascinating to hear Dominic light heartedly self describe as "the salt of the earth". An unknowing direct quote from Jesus himself.
A very interesting podcast with an even more interesting twist at the end the where Tom doesn't quite say he believes in the resurrection but implies its the best explanation we have of the disciples behaviour. My reference to Occam's Razor would produce a different result.
Ill stick with Bart Ehrman and say the bigger and more outrageous the claim, the more evidence you need to support it. Still, worth a listen
reminds me of Robert Graves' 'King Jesus' - the only other alternative history I'm familiar with. Wondering if you have read that, & what you may think of it.
Always look on the bright side of life ...
I'd be interested to know what Tom Holland thinks of René Girard's interpretation of Jesus aa the ultimate 'scapegoat' in the sense of his minetic theory. Has Holland commented on that?
He doesn't so much "cry out " on the cross, He is reciting Psalm 22; praying like a humble Jew.
There are contradictory accounts of what Jesus says, if anything, post crucifixion. Because if these contradictions, it is not useful to make assumptions about what if anything he said
@MrJosyph well the gospel is specific in quoting him on the cross .
I’ve heard a lot of these splinter theories of Christ and the passion. Fascinating. 👍
I have a thought about the doubt expressed, about the necessity of traveling to a specfic location for the census. In 2008 we traveled from south central Manitoba Canada to what is now Russia. We traveled to a tiny village of maybe 100. There was however a very large old Church there and within the church a birth record. Our interest was for the entry of the birth of my German Grandfather in 1933 when the church was in Germany. I don't think it is all that difficult to believe that 2000 years ago having to travel (probably no more than 60 miles [National Geographic Article referred to vast majority of humans die within 60 miles from their birth place ) to the location of the record/database, really it seems like the best option logistically. Besides how would one prove their citizenship or lineage unless they were scrutinized by those who would be familiar with the facts. To the comment why would Romans care about lineage? Why would they not. Information is everything, do the governments of today not keep ridiculous details on their subjects. How else do you keep tabs on potential dissidents or ring leaders....these are just my thoughts I am by no means a historian. But I do know this fact about the distance people lived from their origins was basically universal around the world until the last 50 years.
Human history both BCE and CE revolves around almost ceaseless migration and that particular area had been a migration route since the time homo erectus. If people never travelled more than 60 miles from their birth place until 50 years ago how did Australia and the Americas become populated by Europeans?
You are right that the Romans did care about keeping these records. I read a source on one of those censuses, where the author talked about looking back through the Roman census records decades later looking for specific names.
There would be no shepards looking after their flocks in the middle of winter, that is definitely a spring summer activity
It is the message of love thy neighbour and forgive they enemies which distingushes Jesus as well as personal qualities.
Yes. Love your enemies, forgiveness of sin, and charity for all. Unheard of. Counterintuitive. Difficult and challenging as anything can be. And necessary. Absolute game changer.
Lmao what?!......@Joe-sg9ll
Just want to say I never had any problem with actual Christianity, as a philosophy. I do not like most of the organizations that grew up around it however, obviously very human, greedy and power hungry. I was lucky to been raised in a small community with an Episcopal church that was 95% truly Christian and true to the faith, and not dramatic, very accepting of people. We had lovely Sundays and holiday pot lucks. Religion specifics were sometimes discussed but open mindedly. I was lucky to never have be abused or mistreated.
Christianity isn’t a philosophy it’s larger than that. Stoicism is a philosophy, platonism, Christianity is more encompassing though it contains philosophy.
@@aimowenaim I use that term to separate how I think about it from being a "religion". I don't worship the whole thing but I do think the ideals are ok.
It's wild that the cold hard historical analysis of Jesus is almost more compelling than the Bible itself
The Jerusalem Bible equates the young companion of Paul and Barnabas, named John Mark, with the gospel writer Mark.
Jesus also raises Lazerus from the dead just a few days before arriving in Jerusalem, as a sign too.
David rode on a mule. The idea of the King of Israel being a servant of the people predates Christ.
The purpose of the two donkeys episode is to imply Jesus is the Messiah.
Cultural context of Jesus is that gods were business in the Greco Roman world
I got halfway through one of Bart Ehrman's books. He was brought up in an American protestant tradition that believed the Bible was dictated by God and was inerrant. There are obvious inconsistencies between the four Gospels, but you would expect that. There are relatively few contested issues. All the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus. NT Wright taught theology at Oxford and was Bishop of Durham. Wright points out that we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts, more than any other ancient text. Caesar's Gallic Wars was written in the first century B.C. There are only 10 manuscripts in existence. The earliest textual evidence we have was copied 1,000 years after the original. Garry Wills is a Catholic, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, and received a doctorate in Classics from Yale. He believes there is only the Jesus of faith, and it is not worth looking too hard for the historical Jesus.
💚
He cannot be killed prior to passover and have been present at the last supper ,(a Sedar).
So how exactly does the "lamp " thing work? They were killed prior to passover
Well, there was this PR guy: Saint Paul.
The sneaky snake. 🐍
John the Baptist primed the people, Saint Paul gave them confirmation from outside Jesus' circle. Bookends, maybe necessary ones, that make it harder to explain away as a conspiracy of a few.
You mean…..Saul! 😊
Dear Listeners!
Are you familiar with the book: The Immortality Key by Brian C. Muraresku, and if so what do you think about it? How much credit should be given to his work?
Wish you all a happy Christmas!
None. It's a load of rubbish.
Not much
I think we can all agree that dating the Nativity to the census of Quirinius doesn't make sense, not only for all the reasons you rightly provide but also because it contradicts what Luke writes:
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah,…
11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, … he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15….”
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David.
Therefore it would seem that both Matthew and Luke date the birth of Jesus to around the time of Herod the Great, it's just that Luke misdates the census of Quirinius - perhaps like many later scholars to this day because he was trying to "rationalise" the reason for Jesus being born in Bethlehem. But it is certainly far less rational to assume that He was born in Nazareth, regarding which there is no mention in the historical sources.
The idea that Jesus is buried in Kashmir is very interesting. But I have never understood why this would negate the belief in Resurrection. Whether Jesus survived the crucifixion or was resurrected, either way he could have travelled to India.
Where can I find episodes 1-177?
On Podbean
i think john the baptist may have been looking out for the recurring astrological convergence which heralded the flood and the passover..the people who understood astrology from sumerian star names had constructed the messiah king idea
Did I miss something two whole episodes on the life of Jesus and there’s nothing said about the fact that there’s a huge gap between his youth and the time we pick up Jesus in Galilee with his disciples.
Quirinius served two separate terms in office there.
Any thoughts on how Jesus, a poor Galilean peasant would have been literate and so conversant with scripture?
I think the point is that he wasn't a peasant. He was of the craftsman class
@@flowermeerkat6827 No, he wasn't. This was an error in this podcast. Carpenter is a bad translation. Labourer would be more accurate. Not a skilled artisan, at all.
I think the stories of the Hebrew Bible will have been widely told, I would think most people in that region would have heard them told many times by many preachers. Literate though - not so much. Definitely not!
Jesus Christ is King! 🙏🏾
Absolutely NOT what Jesus claimed for himself
A man is God are you kidding me 😢
If he understands that his death is his fate then why is Judus vilified. He is essential to the entire thing?
Because Judas had free will. Any of the disciples could have betrayed Christ but only Judas chose to do so.
Why is the notion of the imminence of the end times so prevalent in the time of Jesus: the Jews were specially argumentative and they hated the Romans for a taxing them and that’s probably one of the major factors.
You two guys should do a follow-up to this: how historically accurate was "The Life of Brian"?
It's probably more accurate than most would like to admit. For instance "Naughtius Maximus" is inspired by a historic rumor.
100%!!! He truly was a very naughty bot
This...people refuse to believe that Biggus Dickus and Incontenentia Buttocks were real people
@@Ed-om9xy Much like ChatGPT. 😉
A heard a genealogist say the Bible was really the story of the house of David and after John Jesus was the heir of both branches the military and religious branch so the crown prince
Paul didn't know Jesus, everything he says comes from visions. Which ought to make his writings somewhat sceptical to say the least.
There were definitely people who seem to be going around at this time performing miracles. I don't know were I read this but there is a specific quote regarding the false profits
Christ opposed the traditions of the Pharisees added to the Scriptures also, which they hated, and they were part of the Sanhedrin.
The amadis also believe that he is buried with Moses in Kashmir.
A lot of people don't know this, I didn't for a long time. The 2 major religious authorities in Judea was the pharisees and Sadducees. The sadducees only believed in the 1st 5 books, the Torah. Genesis exodus leviticus deutoronmy and numbers. That's it, the sadduccees were old school, its only Moses to them. The pharisees believe in later prophets like Isiah, Daniel, and the rest of the old testament. That's 1 reason why the sadduccees strait hated jesus, but some of the pharisees were question, is Jesus the Christ? The pharisees had a concept of a coming messiah. The sadducees did not, and they also didn't believe in any afterlife
The reputation of Jesus is a victim of the 4th Estate -Gossip and virulent rumour. He's alleged to have said He could destroy the Temple and raise it in 3 days. He doesn't usually make promises he can't keep. There is an earthquake over Passover weekend, but the Temple isn't destroyed. The Establishment is another matter.
Roll on to 70AD!
The census was not 9f people but of property. Joseph was poor and would not have owned property in Bethlehem.
Nor would there be Inns people didn't travel around like that.
Certainly time to have a parallel historical discussion about Muhammad. I dare you!
you don't think a sense of the end times was prevalent in the first century? have you read the dead sea scrolls??
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by a small and highly exclusive sect of deeply zealous and very apocalyptic monks who lived in closed communities that had very little contact with the wider Jewish world. I don't think you can apply their mindset to other Jews, any more than you can say that the Amish or the Mennonites are a representative sample of Christians in the modern USA.
I'm a little disappointed, I thought this was going to be a podcast that would actually discuss the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth within scholarship. I am 4:55 minutes into this video and the dismissive way history is being handled is utterly ridiculous and nowhere near scholarly. "One of the most important inscriptions from the Roman era is the Res Gestae (Acts or Achievements) of Augustus. It is an autobiography in which Augustus describes his achievements, of which he writes "In my sixth consulship [28 BC], with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I made a census of the people. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-one years. In this lustration 4,063,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A second time, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius, [8 BCE.] I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A third time, with the consular imperium, and with my son Tiberius Caesar as my colleague, [14 AD] I performed the lustrum in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius. In this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll."
load of the Jesus myth is lifted straight from the cult of Mithras. 25th Dec, kings worshiping. god of light, divine incarnation, ascension to heaven, bread and wine are key to the rituals, as is baptism.
A deeper reading, and more understanding, of the bible would have helped this episode. Perhaps a reading of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" would of helped this effort. Otherwise a good effort!
...they must know he's the carpenter guy from Nazareth.... 😆
carpenter comes from the greek tekton but this is a similar word as teknon meaning infant.in one gospel it says 'carpenter son of god' using a different greek word for son...i get the feeling tekton might be a deliberate spelling mistake or wordplay..john mchugh explains the nativity story from astrology where the sumerian name for the star regulus means 'infant'
With great respect, I feel compelled nonetheless to state that I believe historians make a grave error when they discriminate between so-called "supernatural" and "natural" events. What our current version of a dominant cultural paradigm fails to understand, it brands as "supernatural, and therefore completely discounts as fanciful, and only those theories and events that can be explained by our western materialist worldview are accepted as plausible.
Throughout the vast majority of human history, there has been no distinction between the natural and the allegedly "supernatural" and therefore all phenomena which occur in human perception can be taken together to form a coherent reality. The fact is that we live in a world that is far, far more nuanced, subtle, and filled with the miraculous, the strange and the magical than our current grey-faced academics and lab technicians can even dream of, and we interact with that world every day. By excluding the so-called "supernatural" one excludes the very aspects of the human experience that are most important, most meaningful, and most beautiful.
There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Jesus did not perform the very miracles he is credited with performing. At the same time, I would argue that those who are overly impressed by the story of Jesus, those who believe that it has no parallel in history, are simply ignorant of the lives of the Rishis, and the lives of the various Hindu saints to have walked amongst people during the ages that followed. Even in these materialistic modern times, living saints who are every bit the equal of, if not the superior to, Jesus have walked and some walk among us still. Their teachings are profound, and their miraculous deeds are real. They are here to prove to humanity what kind of world we really live in, and to show the way for the average person to reconnect with the divine. There is nothing supernatural about this, for nature herself is an emanation of the divine source, and is therefore holy and alive.
Apologies if that strikes a discordant note for some readers. I simply felt that it needed to be said.
All the best to all concerned, --N.
There is a reason not to believe the miracles. We don't see miracles today. They saw them then because they had a pre scientific worldview that couldn't explain what they observed around them
This is a brilliant analysis, but in no way does it undermine the meaning of Christ, which is transcendent truth. Ancient stories are always embellished with each verbal account as they were handed down, before being written. But Tom asks from where this central idea of a supreme power, a power which transcends all military power derives. Isn’t that obvious? It comes the central concept in Judaism of God. Christianity extends this concept from the 13 tribes of Judah to all mankind. This idea, as Tom points out, was hugely threatening to the power that then existed - Rome. Of course, it eventually completely overcame Rome to the extent that Rome became the home, centre - and a byword - for Christianity itself. There’s a thought for Christmas - hallelujah!
Well reasoned analysis & wide ranging discussion of a rich topic, gentlemen. It would be nice if Dom wasn't forever stepping on Tom's dialogue because Tom's final thought is often overridden thus. I find the articulateness of both scholars here valuable & resent missing any of it. That said, one difference of opinion: the most humiliating form of execution IMHO is impalement, especially vertically.
The sleeping guards theory is ridiculous when thought about. "While I was asleep and not conscious of anything going on around me, I was able to identify His disciples and that they removed the seal on the stone and the stone and grabbed His body and left. So I reported it to you."
Huh... What is more plausible: (a) all these well crafted stories and parables come from a team of learned writers that research and collect them over the years from traditions beyond their time and place or (b) they come from the illiterate son of a Nazareth carpenter that invents them while walking in the desert... Mhhh... difficult to tell.
"A cardinal mind cannot understand spiritual things"
You've had geniuses emerge from nowhere, autodidacts, et al in history before. Plus, Jesus' knowledge was quite folksy, you know? I think it makes sense.
@@brotherxela5085he hears what he wants to hear. Any excuse to justify...
Its more organic than that. “christianity” is happening and spreading and taking hold before the “ tadah” of an organised book launch.
Just skipping over Egypt entirely?
If such was the case then presumably he would have called himself a Christian, he does not. He is a Jew, who is relating to Jewdism. He isn't out there preaching to other cultures. If he is how you're attempting to portray him would he not be preaching to all cultures?
Jesus was stabbed in the heart while he was on the cross
By the same person who stabbed you in the brain?
Christ absolutely identifies Himself as God.
‘Truly truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM’ is unequivocal. With this declaration, He not only arrogates a distinctly Jewish name for God (first appearing jn the burning bush in exodus) but more importantly, He claims an eternal nature: before Abraham ‘was’ (in the past) I Am, I was in the present tense then, as I am now, because Christ never ‘was’ He is eternally in the present & the future.
In modern nonduality circles, the "I am" is seen as awareness, as in "I am" is awareness or life, and every human can know herself as the "I am".
So many think that's the "I am" in Bible.
Which translation?
Who wrote it?
How long after Christs’ death?
All these questions have to be answered, then you’ll find the degrees to which the accounts differ. There is no 1 gospel truth.
The four gospels contradict each other in numerous places. You are quoting from John, the last and most "sexed up" gospel. The earlier gospels are quite different.
@th8257 not one contradiction... different accounts does not mean they are a contradtion. If you and I both witness something... or if we both write accounts of what other people witnessed, of course our writtings will be different. Some things might be there and others that aren't. Doesn't mean the essence of them are antithetical.
The carpenter thing is not right. Bad translation. Better description would be labourer. Definitely not a skilled artisan. Also, bodies were left to rot on the cross. They were not taken down and tended by loved ones. Being left to rot was part of the punishment. There was no tomb. Unless we are to believe that the Romans decided to let the body be removed from the cross, because someone asked them nicely. Didn't happen.
None of the "proof" for anyone named Jesus holds any water. The entry in Josephus that is commonly cited was added by someone who was a religious fanatic (a fact that is generally accepted by scholars today). And the Gospels are not history. The earliest was written at least 50 years after the years when "Jesus" would have lived - when people back then usually lived 30-40 years. The names of each Gospel book were assigned much much later with no evidence that they were written by that person. The four books contradict each other. "Matthew" is based on "Mark", and "Luke" is a revision of "Matthew"/"Mark". There is evidence that multiple authors had their hand in what is called John.
I've listened to several ot "The Rest Is history" podcasts, but this one was very disappointing. Why would they rehash old arguments that are generally not believed except in the most conservative colleges and churches? It calls into question the validity of the other podcasts - at least for me.
If it didn’t commit so many harms it would be defensible and good natured to remain respectful. But I can’t respect the crack dealer when he has established his distribution operation from within children’s playgrounds.
Jesus resurrected from the dead they said, Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse they said. Take your pick or read Tolkien.
Sadly, the Gospels are just collected Christian propaganda for a mythical figure who replicates the actions of many mythical figures before him.
the empire of alexander had fallen apart.i think jesus and others before him tried to reunify the alexandrian countries and they needed a unified worldview
Not 12, but 13, 0 is a number. Sorry to be pedantic and I know you are a historian rather than a 9 year old mathematician.
I love your podcast but this wasn’t the best example of objective thinking. While it’s reasonable to believe Jesus existed, you constantly gloss over irreconcilable contradictions (such as the resurrection claims which are insanely inconsistent). Then, you claim there are multiple sources and it’s weird so you think it’s reasonable to believe these things. Contradictions indicate, definitively, error in one of more of the accounts, dramatically undermining the credibility of the detail in question. You also fail to examine other reasons the evolving gospel writers have to include implausible details such as explaining why the messiah was so easily killed by his enemies or the constant shoehorning in of stories to line up with prophecies, or indeed the use of a likely real, impressive figure to further the goals of the early Jesus cult such as appealing to gentiles. You also fail to account for the now almost universally accepted belief among bible scholars that other than Mark, the gospel writers were copying each other and likely at least one other lost protosource, Q.
In short, you give Waaaay too much credit to anachronistic views assuming much of the gospels are true, avoiding the responsibility a historian has to the truth. I think it would do many of your viewers well to look up a video by Ehrman explaining why many of the details of the gospels seem likely to be untrue even while Jesus’ existence and charisma are likely true
Sorry Tom but you're seriously not looking at this from the point of view that you said. You are preaching the Christianity that is written in the Bible...which in itself is beyond problematic
Not the magi! 😥
It's all bollox! None of the contemporary historians seemed to have noticed this Jesus fellow, supernatural or otherwise.
Too right. All the "Christians" banging on about "Jesus" all the time. Notice that no-one has every produced his birth certificate, or his driver's licence, passport records, school reports, year book entries, utility bills, nothing, They ask us to believe that he's the son of God and they don't even have a photo of the dude.
@@gentlebreeze6414yeah and no social media accounts? He wasn't on Instagram!
"Is he the jewish messiah?" Well, who else has there been.
Obviously he is coming from the point of view of a Jew.
Like amateur hour listening to these two, how about getting NT Wright on?
There's actually a (couple I think) good conversations between Holland and NT Wright. One online is primarily on Paul but it included an even more agnostic version of Holland...
Two brilliantly well informed people on everything from Tolkien and World War Two to the Aztecs and Alexander the Macedonian. Am surprised anyone would think they were amateurs -except in the old-fashioned sense of their love & enthusiasm for each of many topics covered.
“Jesus existed.” What is uncontested is that BELIEF in Jesus existed in the first century. That’s not the same thing as the bold assertion “Jesus existed.” The story of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus was most probably made-up (see Plutarch), but the Jewish lawgiver Jesus really existed(?).
Jesus’ teaching is unique? I have found 24 gospel teachings in Cicero. Cicero was much praised by Jerome. The Stoics produced great ethical teachings mirrored in “the teachings of Jesus.” These writings were publicly available at the time the story of Jesus was written. The “kingdom of virtue” was a unique idea? What Jesus is portrayed as is as the virtuous king. Where does this idea come from? From Cyropaedia by Xenophon. To say that the teachings of Jesus were in any way unique shows an ignorance that should not be countenanced by historians.
Cutting down the fruitless tree is not mentioned elsewhere in scripture? Has Holland not read Jude 11-13? “They are waterless clouds carried along by the winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted;...” or, Paul in Romans 11? “For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you?” (v.21)
The death of John the Baptist occurs in 36AD which is long after the supposed career and death of Jesus. (Josephus, Ant 18.5.2) A cult around John arose as a result of this event, which competed with the new cult of Jesus. John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul. In the initial conception of Christianity which Paul preached there was not seen any connection between Jesus and John because John lived and died a long time before Christianity became popular.
The trouble is people (including historians like Holland) have been mesmerized by the story and have failed to ask the basic historical question; WHEN. When did the religion arise? Whether Jesus existed or not there was a year in which the religion did not exist and a year following, in which it did. (Think by analogy of Mormonism.) This is fundamental. What year was that? When did the religion kick off? And being a highly successful religion we can assume that it didn't linger for forty or so years in the wilderness. It bolted from the starting blocks.
There is no good evidence that Christianity existed prior to the Roman-Jewish War.
I too was frustrated by the lack of scholarship in this podcast. Where did these sayings come from? 85% of them are plucked right of the Hebrew Bible! Most of the sayings of Jesus are copy/pasted right out of the books of Deuteronomy and Psalms.
Hi, John.
Your comment is informative, and I'm hoping you can elaborate on why a successful religion would necessarily jump out of the starting blocks. That doesn't seem intuitive to me. Is it not just as likely that a religion could garner a small following, only to explode in popularity later? There are always many factors at play.
@@PartOfACompleteBreakfast What do you mean by "later?" And why would the founders of a new faith want to contain "the truth?" Their enthusiasm would fade with time not increase. The factors that led to its success were there from the beginning.
@@paulgeorge1144 The founders of a new faith would not sabotage themselves. By "later", I mean I'm curious about how long it takes a religion to gain mass popularity. Has every major world religion exploded onto the scene, or did some grow slowly?
@@PartOfACompleteBreakfast why would Christianity have grown slowly? The Book of Acts says that It grew rapidly.
"No. He was from Nazareth!"
Really, so definite, so early.
But, I will give it a bit
longer...
20.00 Messiah? No mention of Messiah yet???
No doubt we will get to this and the Greek term christos (annointed one)
30.00 Glossed over the Messiah issue eith a bit of 'stretching' it serms to me.
(Sidenote: the word miracle has yet to be uttered during this or the previous episode...)
Strong emphasis on the memorability of the sayings which have been drummed into people WEEKLY over two thousand years. Its not surprising people remember them!
"Struggling to explain? Not half! This bit is garbled and
misleading...Does Joseph of A get mentioned?
Conclusion: I haven't learned much here, unfortunately... Bye
Sorry but I really don’t buy this idea that Jesus and Christianity are so incredibly unique. Tom Holland doesn’t convince me in the slightest.
and should we care about your opinion...?
Nothing historically scholarly about this accounting of Jesus. Just general knowledge that ignores the depth of understanding and aswath with opinion. Makes me consider that other historical accounting in this podcast will suffer in like manner and therefore make me historically shallow for listening. Unsubscribing and will read what real historians will write on these matters and avoid populist history from now on.
Most definitely he was a socialist he was preaching to people on earth how about the social injustices and they were striving for a new kingdom in the heavens but they lived on earth
It's all nonsense. A pity.
@hismhssanta clause is still going strong
Jesus Christ never existed. Nuff said. Sadly there are still millions who won't accept the truth,
Nuff said? 😒Are you a professional historian, brilliant lady? Why is there such a wide consensus among ATHEIST historians that Jesus did exist? I'm not spiritual in any way, but I find their arguments convincing.
Self identifying ‘Mensa’ lady where’s your proof your the smartest of them all 🤔🤣😇
Bart Eheman, perhaps the most distinguished biblical historian, has stated that the evidence for Jesus existing is fairly clear cut. What he said and did is another story. As another biblical historian, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, said "We know a man called Jesus existed. We don't know much else."
Krishna didn't exist either, but none of this matters to people who have religious mania and who are terrified of the fact that we are alone in the Universe.
I thought this was a history channel not a fraud channel.
Did you even listen to the episode?
Religion, like it or not, is a part of life and has been for a very long time. How can discussing this amount to "fraud"? (Tell you what though, if you're in the mood to denounce fraud, you're probably better off focusing your attention on public education and the woke lunacies passed off as reality therein.)
what are you on about you utter muppet?
@neilcam2001 -- you probably also think you're an intellectual.
I thought you atheists were supposed to be open minded…. We are all people of faith but put our faith in different things- your binary thinking is similar to religious fundamentalists