Yes, Tacitus Mentions The Historical Jesus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- #apologetics #historicaljesus #tacitus
It isn’t shocking that Christian texts are our primary source about Christian origins. After all, baseball fans tend to write about baseball history. American history buffs tend to write about American history.
But what does come as a surprise is that we can learn a fair bit about Jesus from early, non-Christian sources. One is the Roman historian Tacitus. But not everyone agrees that Tacitus wrote about Jesus or gives us any historical information about Jesus. A group of fringe scholars known as the Jesus mythicists raises four main objections to the reliability of Tacitus. In this video, I go over four mythicist objections to Tacitus and show that they don't really work.
Blog post: isjesusalive.c...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Sources:
Finding the Historical Christ, Paul Barnett amzn.to/36LJop8
The Jesus Legend, Greg Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy amzn.to/2Lsq1Ke
Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Robert Van Voorst amzn.to/3pUUek7
Can We Trust the Gospels?, Peter J Williams amzn.to/2YLT2Ue
Help support me: / isjesusalive
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommon...
"Considering subscribing" at the end 🤦🏿♂️😂
It’s all good We all make mistakes
Hey, I subscribed, so it worked. All good. :)
I'm already in!!!
This channel's mind-blowing☺☺☺.
I'm really enjoying(specially the drawing part with the information).
Keep it up our brother in Christ!!
@@ፕኗ-ቀ6ፐ ok but Erik never said it did
@@ፕኗ-ቀ6ፐ who is claiming that Tacitus is proof?
Former member of an atheist group and mocker of the faith. Thank you for these videos.
I want to win a soul one day! What about you?
Welcome to the Christian family.
Wonderful news !!!
@@nerdatron817 Sounds like a lot of responsibility
@@thomasthellamas9886 Hard work but someone has to do it.
It's amazing to me the extent that people will go to dismiss good evidence when it doesn't fit their presupposed lies.
What evidence? Do you even know what evidence is?
@@upuridiotgodarse the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
@@upuridiotgodarse It doesn't matter how good the evidence is. There are still those who will claim it isn't evidence despite the fact that it is. When I say evidence, I don't mean proof beyond doubt. Evidence is not always proof. That said; you can have enough pieces to a puzzle to conclude that it's more reasonable to believe something is true rather than believe it is not.
@@joesteele3159 evidence for what? Hear say it's not evidence. You just presented text book definition of evidence. What is presented in this vid is far from it. Your mythical monster Jewish zombie god is logically impossible. Wheather some deranged Jewish preacher existed is not relevant in proving supernatural
@@joesteele3159 how come no verses of the creator speaking to this character called Jesus nor the creator instructing us to send our prayers in Jesus name to get to Him. Thus contradicting Him being a jealous God. The creator is one not trinity and He doesn't need a demi god to carryout His will on earth when He has angels
Not only existed, but suffered and died for my salvation...
Then why are you still here?
HIS will be done... like it or not...
@@AnonRa because you still die??? what kinda reply is that?
neither is true and you know it.
@spiritsplice my soul felt knowledge now has science proving it correct... seeing 2000 year old predictions coming true... seeing mankind turn sour... seeing those that scripture speaks of, those that look but cannot see and listen but cannot hear... oh yes, HE exists... and HE's your only hope... if you are scared, you should be... get on your knees and ask... yep, that simple... get on your knees and pray... JESUS saves...
Most underrated apologetics channel
There has been in 19th century a historian, who made a joke about the unbelievers between theologians. He made a scientific prove, Napoleon had never lived but was an Apollo myth: His name was like, his mother was named Letizia, he rose in the East and perished in the Western sea, island of St. Helena! When I was 12 years old I have read a summary and laughed. It is the right way to deal with Bultmann & Co.
Actually, you aren't THAT wrong. A Catholic priest rewrote history in 1825, in which General Napoleon Bonaparte won many victories for France with the sage of his sovereign, Louis XVIII.
Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Theophilus, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries.
@AtamMardes it is a simple method to say of all sources yoi don't like"fake!"Real lovers of science face them.
@@ragnapodewski4694
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book claims it's the holy truth."
♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of few."
♦"The delusional religious are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free the religious from the chains they revere."
♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.”
♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
♦"Religion fools many bc the brain is susceptible to hallucination & gullibility."
@@AtamMardesLiterally every document that mentions Jesus is a forgery apparently.
The church? Doesn't even exist. It's all made up.
It's worth remembering that the gospels themselves were all four independently-written, same-era accounts later collected to settle this very question and spread the news they contain.
That's not true. Look it up. No biblical scholars claim that. They were written centuries later by multiple authors. Sorry dude. 🤷♂
The gospels were written 40 - 60 years after Jesus's death by people who were not eyewitnesses and there are some contradictions across the four of them; hardly ironclad sources. Did you ever play the game of 'Telephone' as a kid? How did the story at the beginning of the chain compare to the one at the end of the chain? What do you think happened as, relatively uneducated people shared the story and translated it from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to English......
@@nobrien1 Although we are all in agreement that @wtk6069 is a hit-and-run coward who just dropped a lie on us - "telephone" isn't quite the analogy we want. All we need is to demonstrate the Synoptic Problem and word-for-word agreement between ANY of the four gospels in question. We don't even need to *solve* the Problem!
That the Problem exists - that at least one gospel copied from one or more earlier written gospels - is proven by the Mark/Matthew correlations.
Sorry..non if them are written during the time of the life of Jesus.
@@xtiannoregisteredsurname5124weren’t they written few decades later ?
If Christians made it all up, the hoax is so elaborate and absolutely detailed I can only conclude the creator of the universe is behind it.
😂😂
Con artists made up the story, Christians are the ones, who believe in the con.
Haha, agreed
Christianity, if there was no God, must be the most complex, interconnected and consistent web of lies ever told, by thousands of people from different cultures over the course of 3000 years.
The messianic prophecies, the immense wisdom and the undisputable historicity of (at least) parts of the Bible are simply all too much for me not to believe the Bible.
Your comment seems to contain a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad incredulitatem, or argument from incredulity. It implies that because something is difficult to comprehend or explain, it must be true or have a divine origin. However, this doesn't necessarily follow logically. The complexity or detail of a belief system doesn't necessarily correlate with its truthfulness. Many elaborate myths, legends, and religious systems exist across cultures and throughout history, but their complexity alone doesn't validate their claims. Additionally, the statement assumes that if Christianity were fabricated, it would be impossible for humans to create such an elaborate hoax without divine intervention. However, throughout history, humans have demonstrated remarkable creativity and ingenuity in creating elaborate stories, religions, and belief systems without the need for divine guidance. While the complexity of Christianity may be impressive to some, it doesn't serve as evidence for its truthfulness or divine origin.
I used to be an atheist and believed what the Jesus mythers said. I didn't know any real history, despite believing I was only atheist because I was so knowledgeable. Boy was I wrong.
All you mean is you were an atheist for bad reasons and are now a christian for even worse reasons
It is great seeing God at work in your life thank you for your comment
Oh boy.
@@Elaphe472 Yes,,,here we go. 🙏
lol , You were never an Atheist, It has nothing to do with how much knowledge someone has , An Atheist doesn't think the evidence for a God has been met, Nothing more
I literally saw some atheist arguing that it was not "Christus" but "Chrestus" Which is Complete different for them.
Suetonius was the one who mentioned Chrestus
no one met Christ and wrote about it
Yes. Chrestus was a follower of Chrestna or Chrishna, and was named after him. Chrestus and his followers were kicked out of Rome in the reign of Emperor Claudius who was emperor from 41-54 CE. Christ, according to the tale, was crucified and gone to heaven long before that time frame, therefore this reference has nothing to do with Christ or Christians.
Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Theophilus, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries.
I recall a TY debate with an atheist who claimed that Tacitus was not a reputable historian. Ironically he had not read the article to the end because the author of the article had, in fact concluded that Tacitus was indeed a reputable historian! Of course that didn't change anything for the atheist.
Many are ADHD or autistic. They fixate on an idea and can never admit being wrong
When in doubt, call the person or their source stupid!
Citing a source without reading it through IS stupid. Kind of like playing hide and seek with the top of your head sticking out over the bush and snickering to yourself as to how clever you are.
He was a propagandist. He was a Flavian Senator. . .The Flavians wrote the New Testament with the help of Joeshus. Who was later bestowed the royal name Flavian.
Joeshus went from POW in the Roman-Jewish Wars to Royalty. I wonder how that happened?
Also back I'm the day historians who wrote the wrong things were rounded up by Rome, there books destroyed and they were killed. There was no real "historians" in Rome.
He was born 20 years after Jesus died and he mentioned he makes of him his only stuff he heard and not a first-hand account. There’s much better evidence than this, in fact this evidence is pretty weak.
I'm a big fan of Jesus. :)
Jesus is Lord and that is awesome!
Me too
Surely, he is your Lord and Saviour also ? If not I pray that you will see and repent of your sins and come too Christ in Jesus name.
@@whydidyouwin9981 Yes
Jesus is the messiah. The devil wants the world to believe he isn't
Wonderful content and great presentation, thank you! Keep up the wonderful work, and be diligent!
pity its all utterly wrong, No one who supposedly met with christ wrote anything
Binge watching your channel. Great work brother.
Excellent!! You just keep the good stuff coming.
I'm an athiest, but I've never understood people who flat out deny Jesus existed. The evidence always seemed pretty solid to me.
And I don’t get what anyone gains by arguing otherwise except satisfying an internal impulse towards contrarianism.
We'll probably never get indisputable proof one way or another, you're never going to convince most Christian believers, and his effect on world history is very real regardless.
Lol, if he didn’t exist, he didn’t have any impact on history, not any more than Aragorn or Tristan had. The Christ myth, however, has been monumentally formative.
@@JHimminy I mean, fictional characters can have an impact on the real world. Superman comes to mind as a modern example.
@@oliviastratton2169 that’s what I said: the myth of Jesus has obviously been powerful and pervasive throughout history.
@@lucyferos205 It's pretty on par with the proof we have for John Henry though, and I've never seen people passionately argue he never existed.
Commenting for the algorithm, great video!
Thanks!
All of the apostles except for John suffered horrible deaths for their preaching of Christ's Gospel. None of them recanted under threat of death of what they had witnessed Jesus say and do. One does not go to the grave for a known lie.
Those were later traditions. The only apostle recorded as having been martyred in the New Testament is James, son of Zebedee.
We know of no eyewitnesses at all, and therefore there are none to speak of that were also martyred. All the authentic Christian martyrs come from the 2nd century onward. The others are just legendary fabrications primarily attested to in the Acts of the Apostles, which are entirely myth.
Although, history is also full of those killed for their faith, even though their faith was based on nothing more than belief in an ancient legend unsupported by fact.
@@screamerlover5781I’d recommend “Fate of the Apostles” by Sean McDowell. It’s a historical study of the apostles deaths and whether they have credible historical evidence. (Spoiler: the answer is solidly yes for a few of them, maybe for some of them, and probably just later tradition for a few others.)
@@philiprobinson2011 The pot calling the kettle black
let's go bro, your channel is quality
🙌
@@TestifyApologeticsvideo doesn't prove anything still. Never will.
@@mistylover7398 angry assertions aren't proof
@CringerZ who says I'm angry lol. You people really do are obsessed with ( non believers are evil angry rebellion against God) don't you?? Anything you want to make non believers look bad. It's always ( yo angry ) card. Lol
I am not a skeptic, I am in fact god fearing… videos like yours are essential in this age of deception and revisionism.
Good books in your description!!!
commenting because you have something to say < commenting to boost the video on youtube.
Pontious pilots letter is even more compelling as it’s an actual letter to the Roman leader Tiberius at the time Jesus exsisted and about him
I've never heard about this hsigorical record, gonna check it.
It’s proven to be fake
Wow! Someone in the 21st century believes that something in the Pilate Cycle was written by Pilate.
@@richardlong5751 wow I later found out that it was a later writing chill out.
Dude its fake it even reads like a low quality Facebook mem come on use your brain you can do it
This perfectly illustrates that the problem with religious people (which technically includes Atheists but don't tell them that...) is what passes as "source", "evidence" and "truth" for them.
Do you even know what evidence is
...🍸extreme skepticism is a sort of intoxicating cocktail of arrogance, ignorance and gullibility...
😂🤣😂🤣
extreme scepticism is the bare minimum in todays world. Any less and you are a fool. Most things are lies and its rare to find truly honest people online.
It is also the basis of all science.
@@wpriddy ...nope... not really...doubt( or skepticism) has very little to do with it...rather, the basis of all Science is a deep seated confidence(Latin "con"= with+"Fides"=Faith) in the discernible Order and Laws of the Universe ...
Woah Thanks I learned something new I didn’t know even the way Tacitus wrote Goes against the idea that it was a Christian forgery
Tacitus wrote that in 116 AD, when there were Christians in Rome. It proves nothing.
@@teastrainer3604 Tacitus helped the Flavian Dynasty predate Christianity to make to appear that Jesus existed so that his "predictions" would validate Romes agenda against the jews. "Jesus predicted 40 years ago that Rome would destroy Jerusalem if they didn't listen" (which they did in 69-70 A.D)
"Oh wow, Jesus must have existed because he was right"
It was a self fulfilled prophecy by Rome from a man who never existed.
Just because Tacitus mentions Jesus doesn’t prove anything except that there was someone named Jesus who lived at that time .
You've missed the point of the video, which is to address mythicist claims that Jesus didn't even exist.
You've done a great job of finding fault with the video for not doing what it never set out to do. Very astute of you.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh How is someone a mythicist when they claim someone DIDN’T exist ? That makes no sense .
@@michaelblankenau6598 Because they claim the existence is a myth.
Are you really so ignorant of the term's use that you don't know this, or are you just trolling?
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Well , if he did exist he certainly didn’t leave much of an impression on those who recorded events at that time .
@@michaelblankenau6598 Well, if Jesus never existed, it is remarkable, then, that early Christianity's Jewish opponents expended so much effort in the Talmud to discredit someone whose existence they could simply have denied. The same applies to early Christianity's gentile opponents, as exemplified by the 2nd-century Greek philosopher Celsus - whose _The True Word_ (c.175) made many of the same derogatory claims about Jesus that one finds in the Talmud.
No serious historian - Christian or atheist - questions the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. In addition to all the biblical references to Jesus, he was written about by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Quadratus, and the writer of the Didache. Granted, these were all Christians, but Jesus was written about by non-Christians, too, including Josephus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Phlegon, Suetonius, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus. These were all writing about Jesus within 150 years of his death and resurrection, some within 50 years. The fact that none of them was writing about Jesus before his ascension is irrelevant. To dismiss the evidence of their writings, some of which were by Christianity's opponents, is to demand a standard of evidence that no genuine historian requires of any historical figure. The remarkable thing about the evidence for Jesus' existence is that there is so much of it for an otherwise obscure person whose public life spanned no more than 3½ years and who apparently spent all his adult life in an area encompassing less than 150sq.km (58.5sq.mi) in a poverty-stricken backwater of the first-century Roman empire.
Even Richard Dawkins, in _The God Delusion,_ couldn't find a qualified historian who would deny Jesus’ existence, so he resorted to citing GA Wells, a professor of German (not history) at the University of London, to call Jesus’ existence into question.
I had an atheist dismiss and laugh at me when I pointed out that Tacitus wrote on Jesus. His logic was that Tacitus was born in AD 56 and hence wouldn’t know about Christ. He said so on a post by William lane Craig on instagram and was a cowardly individual because he had disable responses for his comments. I laughed at his ignorance simply because his logic was akin to saying someone born after a historical figures existence cannot be an honest in their writings even though he might have access to records available to them at the time.
no, he is second hand, who met christ and wrote??
I appreciate your videos man. Hopefully commenting etc helps. Keep up the good work!
Among the things that I find interesting about the 4 gospels is that there are 4 of them, not 1. It is one thing to acknowledge that there might have been several groups around the first century, independent or overlapping, each following different Apostles' stories, say, or even among the Essenes who may have decided to use the Jesus figure to advance their own cause, etc., etc. But after Christianity gets going, and especially after it becomes legalized, why didn't the "official story" get worked out and consolidated? The 4 stories overlap a lot, but they do not tell the same story, do not portray the same Jesus character, or mission, or even goal. Some events apparently contradict other ones, or use different characters to tell the same story or teach the same lesson. So why are there still 4? Why didn't Constantine, say, order the Nicene conference to neaten things up? Is there something beneficial or more powerful being served by preserving 4 different points of view? Sort of like the conflicting testimony of different witnesses to the same event or crime at trial. It is well-established that this kind of thing happens. I tend to think that there is a good reason for this being served. Perhaps more than even making sure you can't put Jesus in a "box".
Jesus mentions in John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. 31 If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. 33 You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from people. 42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
Commenting just to try and bump this epic video
Never mind the dude was born almost six decades AD.
he was born 23 years after the figure claimed to be Jesus, a revolutionary communist rabbi, died. he didn't even reference the character until 116, or... drumroll...
83 years after the character Jesus died. and people claim this is credible evidence😂
Tacitus' statement that the death of Jesus happened during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate (A Roman Procurator/Prefect), isn't something Tacitus would assert based on Christian "Claims," but rather on Roman Governmental sources.
Tacitus didn't depend on marginalized and persecuted Christians for historical information regarding his own governmental bodies.
Others in your camp also claim that the Roman Empire officials and its historians didn't keep record, or know who their Emperor & officials were that governed the Empire and Judea (A ROMAN PROVINCE) a measly 80 years earlier. This is a pathetically ridiculous and frivolous argument. The result of bias and being in denial.
@@theworldisastage1984 Much MUCH nearer 2024
@@I_renounce_satan whatever you think you meant to say, clearly isn't what you think it is. your response makes me think you just had a stroke
You are missing the point. He was a impotant Roman figure who would have access to Roman documents and information.
Unbelievable ! Not a single first hand fact in the whole post , just third hand hearsay .... Notice if anybody disagrees with the posters they are ' fringe ' ........mind-blowingly delusional
Tacitus also says that Vespasianus performed miracles
I've went over this in another video.
@@MushroomFarmersGuild
You should backup your ridiculous claims.
@@Esico6if they’re ridiculous (“deserving only of ridicule”) then why do you ask for evidence? Bad faith?
Why this desperate attack on faith? Leave proof to science and faith to things of faith. Those who do know christ personally know we don't believe in fairy tales or just anything. It's not supposed to be about believing in God, but believing ( obeying ) God who actually loves us and his commandments are not grievous. Hell is the grave.
After his death Titus presended evidense to the Roman senate that his father was a god so that he would be a son of god. Vespasain was given he title of God.
The New Testament was referencing Vespasain, Titus and I forget the last ones name. God, Son of God and the holy spirit.
It largely focuses on Titus and his war against the jews. That's why chapter names are like "the battle of so in so".
Jesus is an allegory to Titus, the Son of God. Titus is the one who leveled Jerusalem and killed 30,000. But in the Bible Jesus comes and feeds the masses. It's pretty dark in reality
Amazing brother 🔥🔥
05:22. I just had an atheist make that claim, praise Jesus for guiding me to your answer.
Jesus never existed.
@@connoryork6631
"You just look silly"- Bart Ehrman.
@@hwd7 Tacitus was a Flavian propagandist just like Josephus. Tacitus was a Roman Senator. . .I know 10,000 times more history than Tacitus ever could.
It's ironic you think I'm silly for not believing a 2000 year old politician. You're fucking loony toon dude
@@hwd7 Tacitus was a Flavian Senator i.e proprandist and so was Josephus. You believe a 2000 year old politician and call me dum? You're a bright one
Never read into this. I do remember my art history instructor at Shasta College stated during his lectures that Jesus is mentioned in numerous writings/sources from Classical Antiquity..
He is not. Anywhere. No mentions outside of pilate. And all he says is that he crucified a guy named jeshua. A very common name. He crucified 8 jeshuas if I remember correctly.
Who was really mentioned was Apollonius of Tyana whom the Christian fathers robbed.
Hi Erik, I've been doing a lot of digging around for the historicity of Christ and one thing I've seen pop up over and over again is there could be "15-18 sources for Christ" if this is true, perhaps an idea for a future video? When trying to hunt down all these sources I can only find the commonly known sources like Josephus, Tacitus and Celcus.
Some sources may confirm that Jesus existed and perhaps even parallel some aspects of the Gospel accounts, but the information is meager and uncertain, like Thallus, Seutonius, or Mara Bar Serapion. To name a few. And some are considered to be more valuable, like Josephus and Tacitus. The Thallus reference particularly interests me and I may do a video on it.
I think this just kinda proves Josephus and the Flavians we're in on making him up together
@@iamkyle42 😂
@@j.gstudios4576 ??
@@iamkyle42 oh I thought you were joking sorry
Once again, best channel online. Hands down. May God bless you richly!
TACITUS DEFENDED!
TACITUS' statement:
"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."
LIE #1
* R. T. France states that the TACITUS passage is "at best" just TACITUS repeating what he had heard through Christians.
(WRONG!❌)
REFUTES
- First of all, TACITUS is widely known as One of the Greatest Roman Historian during Ancient times. The Annals was Tacitus' final work, and modern historians generally consider it his greatest writing. Historian Ronald Mellor calls it "Tacitus's crowning achievement", which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".
- Based on the context of the
passage, it is very ridiculous to believe that TACITUS heard Christians say that Christianity was a "mischievous superstition" and "evil". The words are TOO NEGATIVE to come from Christians.
- Paul Eddy states, as Rome's preeminent historian, TACITUS was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip
- TACITUS was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources
- Modern scholars believe that as a Roman senator, Tacitus had access to Acta Senatus-the Roman senate's records-which provided a solid basis for his work.
(The annals by Cornelius Tacitus, Anthony John Woodman 2004 ISBN 0-87220-558-4 pages x to xx)
- TACITUS was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body.
LIE #2
* TACITUS' statement was a Christian scribe interpolation
(WRONG!❌)
REFUTES
- Andreas Köstenberger states that the tone of the passage towards Christians is far too negative to have been authored by a Christian scribe
- Van Voorst also states that the passage is unlikely to be a Christian forgery because of the pejorative language used to describe Christianity
- TACITUS clearly stated in the passage that Christianity was the "most mischievous superstition" and "the EVIL" in which Judæa was the source!
- No true Christians would dare call their own faith as a "mischievous superstion" or "evil". This highly proves that the statement of TACITUS was genuine and not a forgery by Christian scribes!
LIE #3
* TACITUS made a mistake by calling Pontius Pilate a "procurator" instead of a "prefect".
(WRONG!❌)
REFUTES
- The fact that TACITUS called Pontius Pilate a "Procurator" instead of a "Prefect" only increases the authenticity of the statement and proves that it was really TACITUS who wrote the text and not interpolated by a Christian scribe!
- Also, it was natural for TACITUS to use the word "Procurator" since the word was commonly used by Roman authorities during Ancient Rome.
The word Procurator, Latin Procurator, plural Procuratores, [refers to] government financial agent in ancient Rome. Procurators were regularly appointed to official posts in the imperial administration of the provinces or in the departments of the imperial government concerning such matters as the grain supply, the mint, and the mines. Procurators of provinces supervised imperial finances in their respective jurisdictions.
This matches Pontius Pilate's responsibility, since he had the power to inflict capital punishment, and he was also responsible for collecting tributes and taxes, and for disbursing funds, including the minting of coins.
(Schwartz, Daniel R. (1992). "Pontius Pilate". In Freedman, David Noel; Herion, Gary A.; Graf, David F.; Pleins, John David; Beck, Astrid B. (eds.). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 5. New York: Doubleday. pp. 395-401. ISBN 0-385-19360-2.)
ADDITIONALS:
* Edward Gibbon (an English Historian who deeply studied the fall of Roman Empire) considered Tacitus the very model of the philosophic historian
* Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus"
* William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts
* Scholars generally consider TACITUS' reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records
* the editor of the 1907 Oxford Edition treated the passage (TACITUS' Annals) as genuine
* Scholars such as Bruce Chilton, Craig Evans, Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd agree with John Meier's statement that "Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in TACITUS, the passage is obviously genuine."
This will silence all of the lies
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son (Jesus Christ) that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:18
He that believeth on Him (Jesus Christ) is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 11:25
Jesus said to her, " I Am the resurrection, and the life: He that believeth in Me, though He were dead, yet shall He live:"
John 6:35
And Jesus said unto them, I Am the bread of life: He that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.
John 12:46
I Am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me should not abide in darkness.
John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto My Father.
It's worth mentioning that claiming Christ never existed is pretty new. They used to only question his miracles or the resurrection saying he was just a man not a god.
Not really. People have been questioning Jesus' existence for a long time now. It's just that for well over 1,000 years anyone that did so was subject to a brutal murder at the hands of "mostly peaceful" Christians. Most people do not like being burnt at the stake for "heresy" and remained quiet. Christians also had a tendency to censor and/or burn texts they disagreed with, so there is also that.
Still, what about the stars? Because there is waters above us which you can tell when you zoom the stars. That is the firmament. Why do the stars "twinkle" when observed with the naked eye? Because of waters....just exactly as described in the Genesis. So, when doubt, remind yourself that you're standing at God's original design of Earth (flat earth) since Nasa's stuff is just the sci-fi (science fiction).
Its because the Flavian Dynasty has been outed as the creators of the New Testament
Can i translate your videos to portuguese and upload them to my channel giving the proper credits to you, your channel, your blog and your ministry in the description? Here in Brazil we, sadly, face a lacking on good/scholarly christian apologetics. People believe in christianity without having access to the intellectual side of it, and we want to change that as much as we can. It would help a lot if you accepted the request. Anyways, congratulations for your work!
Sure, sounds good to me. Let me know what you need from me.
@@TestifyApologetics Well, we don't need much apart from your authorization. But a request we would like to make is for you to produce videos about the following articles you wrote:
DID EARLY CHRISTIAN SCRIBES REALLY COMPLETELY FAKE THE JOSEPHUS TESTIMONIUM?
ARE CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS GUILTY OF COMMITTING THE SPIDER-MAN FALLACY?
WHY EVERYONE SHOULD BELIEVE THAT THE APOSTLE JOHN WROTE THE FOURTH GOSPEL
and the articles that deals with the non-christian sources that mentions Jesus, refuting the arguments presented by skeptics against the autenticity of these documents and elaborating on what they say.
I say that because here in Brazil some arguments that you addresses on your articles are the arguments the brazilian-atheists-youtubers-popularizers guys use in favor of Jesus' mythicism. So this would be a sort of indirect response.
Of course, you don't have to try to desperately and as quick as possible produce these videos like if it was some type of emergency. We respect your time and limitations and we are patient to wait the necessary period.
Christianity is Sooo False Brazil is waking up and coming to Heaven and Good Earth again and far long off from Hell like christianity.
@@yaruqadishi8326 but Christian religion is true. All of the evidence shows that fact.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 no all evidence shows that it's absolutely false you don't know any evidence you don't get to blabber things and Christian religions absolutely false but Hinduism like Buddhism and Zoroastrianism and troop faiths are true and we confirm it with evidence facts history God truth Revelation spiritual truths after life creation judgment sin etc at all points to our beliefs way so but it doesn't prove yours yours is cheats and deceived and takes words that don't belong to it and uses it a deception to mask but in fact it has none of those things and it is nothing but cult false belief of Christianity he's been exposed as lies just like the Satan guy has been exposed to nothing but devils and devils and more devils and Christianity sorry to tell you this but the truth it hurts and the light is shining now and there's nothing you can do you can't sidestep out of it all you can do is face it and repent now come back to the true gods or come to the True Almighties from the Lots of Devils you are enslaved.
Myrhicism bores me. There’s not any good evidence of a resurrection, that’s all that matters.
Who cares if a failed prophet actually existed?
Tacitus, Lucan, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Josephus all mention Christ.
But did any of them exist?
Most historians would admit that a person called Jesus existed and would probably not disagree with most of the gospel accounts apart from all the miracles.
yeah it's just secular scholars are denying all information of Jesus and anything about Jesus, this is what I call copium.
Tacitus mentioned Christians and not Jesus. Tacitus wasn't even born when Jesus was crucified. He is basically just reporting what Christians claimed happened.
But that would be using common sense, which isnt allowed in the Abrahamic faiths
He mentioned the christ, not christians
@@Andres.Duran.J since Christ wasn't Jesus's name, he is just reporting what Christians themselves are telling him.
@@Andres.Duran.J The Christ is the name given to the divine leader of Christians. He never mentioned the name Jesus.
@@hamobuMany or the vast majority of people weren’t born with last names then. ‘Christ’ or ‘Messiah’ were names given to Jesus to describe who he was to them, like how people who met Jesus before his mission called him Jesus the rabbi or teacher only to then start calling him Christ once he revealed his nature to them.
Well done my friend!
Jesus is to big for small minded people to take the risk of believing in Christ is a huge leap forward in the right direction good luck 🍀
It’s a huge leap for me to go from the gospels to Paul, much more from the gospels to the Catholic Church. I can’t see how you read the gospels, and then decide “now I’ll let the pharisee, the loyal Roman interpret this for me.” Bosh! In the contest between “the son of god” and the son of a tent maker, you side with the tent maker.
tacitus wasn't even born until about fifty past Jesus' supposed death. anything he wrote regarding jesus was simply based upon stories, reliable or not, second or third hand that people were telling about jesus decades later.
all it really proves is that people believed that jesus existed and stuff happened to him.
The most obvious point about the quote from Tacitus is that he does not have his knowledge of Jesus from official records (and certainly not from personal knowledge). We know this because he gives the name of Jesus as Christus, not Jesus. Had there indeed been an official record from Pilate that Tacitus consulted, you can be sure Pilate would have given Jesus actual name rather than calling him simply 'Christus' (which means the same as Messiah). But if Tacitus did not obtain his knowledge of Jesus from official records, he can only have obtained it from the Christians themselves (perhaps second hand).
It follows from this that Tacitus is only evidence that there were Christians in Rome in the time of Nero (something we already know from Paul's letters). "Testify"'s fallacy is the same as concluding that the angel Moroni is real simply because a tribe, named after him (the Mormons) exists even to this day.
bingo
His name was not Jesus but Yeshua
@@Enochphilw, that is speculation. What is known is that the Greek rendering of his name was Ἰησοῦς (pronounced ee-ay-soos) and that there were several Hebrew names that were transcribed into Greek in that form, including Yehoshua (Joshua), Yeshua, Yeshu and even Yishu.
@@Enochphilw the rabbis refer to that character as yeshu. they would know, they engineered the script
@@theworldisastage1984 The rabbis were reacting to Christian-Palaestinian and Syriac Christians, who were preaching and writing in Aramaic. They'd already backtranslated Jesous to Isho' or Yeshu'.
Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius all attest to a historical Christ. Its also very important that they wrote about this long before the time of Constantine who is the emperor most often accused of inventing modern Christianity. Whether the facts or practices bore much or any resemblance to the modern version of the religion is another question entirely.
Tacitus comment-Forgery. Josephus comments-Forgeries. Jews have earlier copies of Josephus Histories and this forgery isn’t there. Pliny the Younger comment-An interpolation which originally read Essenes, not Christians. Suetonius comment-Referred to Chrestus, not Christ; Chrestus, along with his followers, was kicked out of Rome during Claudius reign which occurred 41 to 54 CE. Jesus was supposedly long ascended to heaven.
Anything written after the gospels cannot be considered as independent. Tacitus was writing in the 2nd century and just reporting what christians believed. If you had writings from a Roman or Jewish source dated to the 30s AD that would be interesting. As it stands there are zero contemporary sources referring to Jesus. That doesn't mean he didn't exist but it does show the Jesus recorded in the gospels is largely if not entirely mythical.
There are also no contemporary sources documenting the conquests of alexander the great and thus: alexander never existed and is just a myth.
@@babylonisfallen4411 except there is and we have multiple independent sources to confirm that Alexander existed. We have statues, we have coinage, we have the people he conquered stories about him. We have more evidence of Alexander the Great than for Jesus.
Why would a Roman official spread lies about his fellow Roman official?
Tacitus did not just report what Christians believed, Tacitus said that his fellow ROman official executed Christ.
This isn't hearsay, this is an official describing the actions of another official. If he wa merely stating hearsay, he would say this is an allegation that Christians make about Pontius Pilate instead of saying oh yep Pontius Pilate killed the Christians group founder and leader.
@@tomatoisnotafruit5670 The only thing you can really get from Tacitus is that a man named Jesus existed. Everything else is just pure speculation. The fact is, there is no contemporary historian or even Roman document from the time that says Jesus even existed. Whatever documents that Tacitus was using is unavailable to us now.
@@jameslay1489 Read his words again, He is talking about a fellow Roman Official, and he is not speculating or restating allegations, he is stating a factual event.
You guys are just in denial since his text quote easily destroyed your argument of that Jesus never existed lmao.
There's like 3 people in the world who doubt a historical Jesus existed.
@@jimihendrix991 exactly
More than 3, check this comment section
@@Andres.Duran.J 18,200,000 don't believe this horse shite in the UK alone...
@@Andres.Duran.J A vast majority of everyone accepts that historical Jesus existed. Including non Christians and atheists
@hamnchee yeah, i am not denying that. Is that just that some atheists are on the same level as holocaust deniers, by not believing Jesus even existed.
So many great videos! You need more subs.
It isn’t shocking that Christian texts are our primary source about Christian origins. After all, baseball fans tend to write about baseball history. American history buffs tend to write about American history.
But what does come as a surprise is that we can learn a fair bit about Jesus from early, non-Christian sources. One is the Roman historian Tacitus. But not everyone agrees that Tacitus wrote about Jesus or gives us any historical information about Jesus. A group of fringe scholars known as the Jesus mythicists raises four main objections to the reliability of Tacitus. In this video, I go over four mythicist objections to Tacitus and show that they don't really work.
Creative way to communicate truth. Keep it up!
Tacitus merely recognised the claims of a small cult which started before his own birth. Later the Romans saw it as a useful tool!
He also confirmed that Pontius Pilate executed a Jew named Christ.
If Jesus is made up by Christians as atheists claim, then why would a Roman official who hates Christians say ah yes Pontius Pilate did kill that one dude name Christ.
There's not enough evidence for those who believe that Jesus didn't exist.
@Iranian Skeptic the evidence is there whether it triggers mythicists or not.
it's more than enough, Tacitus said Pontius Pilate killed Christ.
Now please explain to me how a Roman official can kill someone who doesn't exist? lmao.
Great report. It's a shame that several books of Tacitus' "Annals" were lost, as they covered the years that likely included Jesus' earthly ministry and crucifixion.
Written in 116 AD. That's considered evidence... how?
The video’s conclusion, ‘Tacitus teaches us a lot about Jesus’, is a wild exaggeration. All that Tacitus tells us that Jesus lived in Judaea, that he was executed, and roughly when this happened. Certainly, this is evidence that the extreme mythicists are probably wrong, but that’s all; Tacitus tells us nothing at all about Jesus’s life or actions or teachings.
Tacitus was a Roman historian who wrote about the Roman Empire.
He was not a Christian and certainly not a theologian.
He wrote history from the perspective of a historian.
@@Jin-dc7glhe wrote as a Roman royal who wanted to help his family create a new religion to destroy Judaism
@roddyboethius1722 So, to help create it he wrote a tiny blurb calling it evil, and accused its adherents of hating all mankind, and being hated for abominations? That doesn't make any sense.
😅😅
😅😅😅😊
Tacitus clearly does not bear witness to any claims that Christus was anything but a person who gave his name to the new religion, which was growing in the time Tacitus lived. He makes no references to any claims of Jesus being the son of God, nor even the Messiah. He even fails to mention any of the "miracles" the Bible claims Jesus was responsible for. Given that he was also writing several decades after the accounts he is reporting on, he must be relying on other sources for his information, sources that cannot be verified. The only conclusion that one can make therefore, is that Tacitus probably believed that Christianity described the religious following of Christus and the place and circumstances of this persons death.
A modern day equivalent might be me reporting today on the Branch Davidians and their leader David Koresh who was killed by US Federal Government and Texas State Law Enforcement Officers in 1993 at Waco. It says nothing of the man, nor what his followers believed he was or did.
Your logic is not appropriate for this site. Be gone, and let us return to wonderland!
@@markb3786 Sorry, do you mean that logic generally is inappropriate on this site, or only when I resort to using it? Either way, sorry to have disturbed your fantasy Alice.
I'm a skeptic, but do enjoy your presentations. You seem to stay calm. It's a trick I've not seen often with religion. While this information has been around for awhile, it seems like most of the folks I know never learned it. Good show.
@Caleb Urias not the one christians believe in. I think Jesus was a common name in that time. I don't believe one died and came back from the dead. I've known about Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus as kind of baseline apologetics from the late 90s.
@@johnloftin2461 I see, you’re extremely free to see our beliefs, you’re welcome here brother, Jesus loves you so much.
@@johnloftin2461🕊️Jesus was real believers in him and the bible experience the Holy spirit wich no other faith has. Jesus was not just anyone , he was God's son in the flesh and his life was blameless that's why he shines brighter than the sun now in the Holy spirit realm and there's no darkness in him . Buddha , Mohammed and Alan watts are in their graves. Jesus grave is empty he is risen. Go to any church on earth that believes in Jesus and ask those believers what Jesus from the bible did in their lives and you will hear , broken addictions , life long grudges healed , rebellion replaced with obedience , the sick healed , demons cast out , miracles happen and much more. Jesus died for our sins we must believe in him repent and turn from sins and get baptised to enter paradise instead of hell for rebellion. Once we obey the teachings Jesus gave we experience great peace and joy as the Lord fills the void that nothing else in our lives could fill. Please read bible book Luke to know how to be saved. Peace and blessings
I saved this to my workman playlist, you obviously are a 'good' one.
The existence of a cult worshiping Christos some 30 to 50 years after the date of the crucification is not proof of the existence of an historical Jesus. All it proves is that there was a cult which later became Christianity to claim more than that is to exhibit great confirmation bias
yep, but faith not fact. If he was so great why were there not volumes written ststues raised, crowds noted, letters sent to Rome... zip, nothing.. crickets
Tacitus mentions numerous historical Christian leaders, events, cities, and Jesus.
The Roman church took possession of these documents and had possession of them for a millennium. If you don’t know why nonbelievers are skeptical about classical references to Jesus and Christians.
@@JHimminy Tacitus loathed Christianity. His writings have been vetted by multiple manuscripts, some at the Bodleian, some at Vershcrift Institute, some at Cornell, all outside of that non-Christian Roman cultus. Calling the current Roman sect a “church” would be like calling a brick a boat. Only they think that they are “Christian”. Nobody else does.
This is such a great channel
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of few."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book claims it's the holy truth."
♦"The delusional religious are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free the religious from the chains they revere."
♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.”
♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
♦"Religion fools many bc the brain is susceptible to hallucination & gullibility."
Tacitus was born in 56 AD, so he was just repeating what he was told. Not an eye witness.
Repeating what he was told by whom?
@bc4yt who knows? The point is his "evidence" is hearsay. Proof of nothing.
He doesn't need to be an eye witness. He would be able to tell us what was happening to Christians during the latter half of the 1st Century, and that is significant too. Writing was very expensive then, and the other significant thing is that these writings survived the millenias with enough copies to read them today. That alone indicates they were consider significant.
@@rickedwards7276 lol, you had best throw out most of history then since most historical material is not written by eyewitnesses.
But I'm guessing you only apply this standard of evidence for Jesus, right?
And even then, that's excluding the eyewitness accounts that later became scripture.
Either totally oblivious to the fact that the gospels and NT letters of Peter and James were circulating independently for 200 years before they and others were compiled into the Bible, or, just simply biased against them because... reasons.
@@rickedwards7276 uhuh... Except the early date for Mark is 55AD, and all the NT was almost certainly written before 70AD as none of them give any hint of the destruction of the Temple, which, by the way, Josephus records James, Jesus' brother, having been thrown off of to his death because he refused to recant his testimony about Jesus.
That happened in Josephus' time.
The dumbassery of historical Jesus denial can only have come from America. It completely omits the realization that Jesus of Nazareth, crucified under Pontius Pilate, having been a factual figure does not in any way force you to become a believer in Christianity, something that has been obvious to Europeans since at least the 19th century. Somehow, that realization never seems to have reached American shores, however, so in order to be an atheist (or whatever), Americans obviously believe you have to deny the existence of Jesus all together. 🤷♂
I guess that's checkmate...(only for reasonable people, not for the foolish)
Tacitus relaying hearsay is not best evidence. Similarly, his negative opinions of Christian’s are not evidence that Christians were foul and evil. However, In my OPINION, I believe there was a real human being who we call Jesus. However, even though I stipulate to the existence of this man, that does not mean he is God and has power over the laws of physics.
There seems to be an underlying implication to these proofs. If I were to prove that a creator exists, then it must be MY creator, or if I prove Jesus existed, then I’ve proved he is the all powerful Word of God. These leaps are just not true.
Nice video keep it up!
Four secular historians chronicle Jesus. Pliny the Younger (nephew of Pliny the Elder whom died in Pompeii when Vesuvius erupted) , Tacitus, Joesepheus and Suteonian.
Tacitus did not source his information which is odd for a historian.
You need to remember Greco-Roman histories are written differently from 21st Century histories. What we do in the 21st Century when a true history is written is quite a bit different from a 1st Century history. I am not saying the author's conclusion about Tacitus are correct without a lot of investigation, but his conclusions are rather interesting and worth confirming.
@@katrinaanon1038 Jesus was a popular name. His name wasnt Jesus Christ so it makes no sense for Romans to document him as Christ. Wasnt Barabas name Jesus too?
@@katrinaanon1038Tacitus was a Flavian Senator. The Dynasty that ruled after Nero. The Dynasty that ruled 40 years after Jesus made many grave predictions about the Jewish people. The Dynasty that captured Josephus in the Roman-Jewish Wars. Who was later bestowed the Royal name Flavian.
Tacitus is cited in regards to The Fires of Rome. Which happened under Nero when he was about 8 years old. Tacitus doesn't site a previous source because there isn't one. He is the "citation". This is propraganda not history.
Everything points back to the Flavian Dynasty when it comes to Jesus
Not unusual in first century AD .
Scientific history is fairly modern.
@@petermedcalf1191 Sourcing is not a new concept. Writing down where you got the information is a key component. Especially in Rome where there were records for everything.
And Nero proved a whole bunch of Christians were flamable. There was nothing special about Joshua. I doubt any Roman called him by the Greek version of his name.
Tacitus is writing decades after the death of Jesus and is simply relaying stories handed down. He never met Jesus or anyone who had known Jesus as they were long dead. Tacitus if genuine proves that people were following the Jesus story at the time of his writings but doesn't prove that he existed at all. Early Christian fathers who should have known of Tacitus's reference to Jesus are unfamiliar with it...nice try.
Then why don't you believe first hand accounts of people who met Jesus in the bible?
@@xxxs8309 ooooooooohhh
To be exact, Tacitus talks about Christians, which is only secondary evidence two generations later of Christ. James is well documented, not least in Josephus, but the mention of Christ there is a linguistic anachronism, politely termed a "gloss", added to align texts: in harsher terms, a forgery. The problem is that both names are metanyms, Chrestos meaning "the annointed one" - it's modern derivative is "chrysm" - and Jesus, originally Joshua, "of the House of Jesse". Study's rather stalled recently, and it's possible it can go no further.
More seriously, evidential text surrenders to the sceptics. I've a decent share of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize truly belonging on high, as I was predestined to make some huge contributions in the European State Department. Alone, I was no better than any other. Inspired, I delivered, time after time after time. Repentant confession's the key to clear channels as a Seer Medium - some of London's top psychiatrists and half the Government have seen it for themselves first hand, inspiring the search for weirdos and misfits. The Boss exists, and guides those he's picked - my predestination starts in the early 13th Century.
Christus means anointed. Chrestus means useful or good or righteous, also tool (useful). It says Chrestus in Tacitus.
We even have a manuscript (c. 10th century, I think) where the e in Chrestus was deliberately crossed out and changed with an i so it would align with the name Christ.
That already proves the Jews were revolting at the instigation of a man called Chrestus. Chrestus is usually a slave name.
It's not a mistake one from that culture would make. Anointed and useful are not the same.
Therefore these Chrestians are followers of someone who is useful, good or righteous. Righteous here can mean the teacher of righteousness of the Qumran sect, which is proven to be connnected to the Sicarii, who are elsewhere referred to as Sicarii Essenes. So... It's likely these Chrestiani were actually Jewish messianic revolutionaries (think ISIS but Jewish).
Not peace loving Christians... But Christians do love to insert themselves falsely into the historical record and claim occurrences that never occurred to them ,so.... There you have it
@@humbleopulence This is also why Rome sat on the Essene scrolls for 40 years. The classic sicarius moment was when the Temple authorities came for him in Gethsemane, Peter drew his "sword" and cut off the High Priest's servant's ear.
But to me, it's all superfluous. I've dealt with the real thing for 40 years, making a serious difference, although I insist the glory isn't mine. but belongs to my inspiration.
The Romans ADMIT TO CRUCIFYING CHRIST
This is the equivalent of more out of focus pictures of flying saucers. Tacitus lived from 56 AD to 120 AD, so he cannot provide a first-person account as he was not a contemporary of Jesus. This is after-the-fact hearsay evidence. This is similar to a 19th-century historian mentioning Santa Claus. The fact remains, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE NONBIBLICAL FIRST PERSON ACCOUNT OF JESUS. Five Pauline Epistles were written before the birth of Tacitus.
Maybe the actual first-person, contemporary accounts of Jesus were so important that they compiled them into the very book which came to inform the faith of billions? You know that the Bible is an anthology right? A book of books.
@@henryF6 Yes, the bible says jesus is godlike being. It would be more compelling if outside sources also said this, especially if they were not Christians.
The funny thing is that some have told me that if they knew Jesus was Gods son, they would be Christian....which is amusing, since Christians often tell me I KNOW God exists, but deny him.
Pick a lane.
They was a sect Christians at the time who didn't believe Jesus ever physically existed, so I don't what their bag was if a historical Jesus was knocking around a few years earlier and everyone knew that.
But but... The Annals of history is anonymous and was written many years after the fact. ;)
Lol.
No original copy of the Tacitus exists; even if it did, the text just refers to the obvious fact that Christians exist. Hardly a barn burner.
Did you know that Snow White rose from the dead? Yes, there were seven dwarfs AND a huntsman who witnessed the event. Try harder.
I’m not sure you are understanding what independent sources are. Tacitus is reciting at best third hand accounts. That is not how this works.
Better discount a lot of history. And it’s actually 2nd hand sources since he has contemporary documents.
@@propertyvideos5598 there are no contemporary documents from any one claiming to cite an eyewitness of Jesus crucifixion. At best there are tertiary sources for Tacitus, someone who was born decades after Jesus died.
Taciturn was born 56 years after the dates accepted for the existence of Jesus. Much of his supposed history was mostly second or third hand information.
glad to see comments on here, which maintain academic scrutiny this video doesn't hold. you have a belief, and are seeking details and shaping them to fit that belief, which is unscientific
You know what is unscientific? Denying the existence of Jesus. There's not a single PhD in Ancient History who denies Jesus existed. Years ago historian John Dickson said he'd eat a page of the Bible if anyone found a PhD in Ancient History who denies Jesus existed. It's hilarious how even the most skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman keep wrecking Jesus mythycists in debates
@@mgvilacaappeal to authority appeal to consensus appeal to the group
Very interesting and balanced presentation. Thank you.
Tacitus lived between 52 and 120 ac, so he wasn't the devine scapegoat's contemporary.
He probably got his information from Saulus and the gospels.
@@Drottninggatan2017 not first hand, that's the point, isn't it?
I was not aware of this. Thank you.
Tacitus - Born: c. 56 AD He repeated what someone else said
By that stupid logic we can't trust any bug historical event in history which hasn't been reported by eyewitnesses - which would mean everything that happened in the past must be doubted. It's incredible how no one doubts Alexander the Great existed when his oldest reference dates to 300 years after him. No credible scholar denies Jesus existed, not even the most liberal ones, this denial must stop
If Jesus never existed Celsus would have argued that instead of his opposing story
When Homer wrote the Odyssey he mentioned the gods Athena and Poseidon, but these gods were later dismissed as mythical beings made up by man.
The fact that a man called Jesus was crucified, which incidentally was a common form of execution used by the Romans, doesn't mean that he was the son of god just because Tacitus mentions his name.
The fact remains that there are no eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion or the resurrection, so any conversations that happened during that time are based on heresay.
All three of the resurrection gospel accounts are different and only Matthew mentions an earthquake-and dead people coming back from the dead. There is no roman record of an earthquake in 33 Ad, or zombies coming back to life.
//When Homer wrote the Odyssey he mentioned the gods Athena and Poseidon, but these gods were later dismissed as mythical beings made up by man.//
Irrelevant. Homer was not writing a biography, he was writing an epic poem. Most scholars agree that the Gospels are a form of Greco-Roman Biography; those who disagree are just wrong.
//The fact that a man called Jesus was crucified, which incidentally was a common form of execution used by the Romans, doesn't mean that he was the son of god just because Tacitus mentions his name.//
Cool, nobody said it did. What it does prove is that at least Tacitus believed the reports of Jesus' existence and crucifixion were reliable enough to be included in his written works.
//The fact remains that there are no eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion or the resurrection, so any conversations that happened during that time are based on heresay.//
Circular reasoning.
//All three of the resurrection gospel accounts are different and only Matthew mentions an earthquake-and dead people coming back from the dead. There is no roman record of an earthquake in 33 Ad, or zombies coming back to life.//
You say they are different and then criticize Matthew for being different. So which is it?
Argument from silence. Prove that there was no Roman record. That we don't have one now is not evidence that there wasn't one at the time.
It would make sense that the Roman government would do everything possible to make sure that Jesus’s name received zero recognition at all. They realized the significance of Jesus and his ministry, and its impact on Roman life.
Or they really didn't care because they had more important things to worry about.
I’m a deconverted Christian > atheist, but always been deep in biblical scholarship. I really appreciate your videos, they’re refreshing to be so well done from the Christian view. Folks like Turek, William Lane Craig and the like are just 🙄🙄
I accept a historical Jesus, and some of Ehrman’s views. And while Tacitus and Josephus both wrote of Christ (Josephus most likely contains some Christian tampering, but nonetheless references Christ), they weren’t contemporaneous to the events that they’re writing about. That’s not to say the sources aren’t valuable, because they as historians can easily can utilize who/what is around them to construct a historical narrative. But those accounts and the Gospel narratives don’t seem reliable enough for me as history to verify the miracle claim of the resurrection.
I left the faith for other reasons, particularly the Problem of Evil and pondering on why a tri-omni God would even create in the first place with the foreknowledge of the calamity of sin entering the world. Biblical inerrancy and textual critiques played a part as well… but mainly the Problem of Evil, or at Ehrman sometimes references, the additional Problem of Suffering.
Tangents aside, love the videos! I’ve sent them to my Christian friends. Keep it up! ❤️
Thanks for the kind words and for sharing. Watch other videos, I argue for why the Gospel narratives can be trusted. If anything, I hope they can be at least some food for thought. Either way, keep seeking truth and I appreciate the comment.
@@TestifyApologetics I’ve watched several of your videos. I’ll find your Gospel one next, and will detail my disagreements (if any) in the comments 😂😂
@@robertcarney6112 Sounds good, I might not have tons of time to respond but chances are I'll address something in future videos. I have a lot planned to address
Something I've learned about people who want to deny Christ is that its not about evidence for them.
It's about rejecting God no matter how much proof there is.
Its better to just preach the gospel and let them seek the truth out themselves.
When they ask for proof, they only want to mock anything you say because they aren't truly seeking. They just want to be rude towards God, so they attack his followers
Something I've learned people who insist christ was divine is that it's not about evidence, it's about blind faith. In fact the New Testament suggests Jesus and god prefer blind faith. I've also learned it's about feelings for believers because when confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, they fall back on feelings.
He is just reporting what he heard. He's not an eyewitness. Just because there were Christians, and that they talked about him does not prove that Tacitus knew anything about an historic Jesus. Fail, you do.
Try coping harder mythicist. You fail to refute any of it. You must just he another average internet atheist with an intellect of absolute no use.
🤡
Lol. Isn't knowledge something passed on and heard by other people?
You can outrightly deny Tacitus just because he just "heard" it from somebody else.
What about this? Peter and John wrote about Jesus and they are eye witness. But of course you would claim they fabricated it.
Your arguments are as follows:
1. Don't believe the Gospels and the apostles of Jesus, who are eyewitnesses, they just made it up.
2. Don't believe those who heard the story of Jesus from others, it is just hearsay.
If that is your argument, then you wouldn't believe anything. 😂😂😂
@@HaroldtheNihongoStudent Scholars today assert that these books were not written by the Apostle Peter. There is no proof of Peter's existence either.
As for Tacitus, after the fire in Rome, Nero looked for a scapegoat. They picked on the Christians and the historian wrote about it. So, total bunk.
No books were written by eyewitnesses.
@@TimothyOBrien1958 Of course all you have to do is to conveniently deny every claim to prove your point.
In the end you are the winner of your own argument. Lol.
"Acta Pilate" the letter written about the events regarding Jesus by Pontious Pilate to Caesar in Rome.
Tacitus never met Jesus. He just talked about what other people said. Heresay.
Well, Tacitus wasn't the only one. Several Roman and Jewish historians spoke about Jesus too.
History is generally about the investigation of events one has not personally seen. You do believe there was a war between the Persians and the Greeks, do you not? I am assuming you yourself weren't there to see it.
We're you not listening to the video, Tacticus had access to roman archives and he would be likely to check to see if there was a document that listed how a Jewish priest was executed by one of their governor's named pontious pilate. For someone who is skeptical on how People draw their conclusions from little things, you seem to be quite guilty of that practice if you're not willing to give the video full attention to make a proper conclusion
@@lucyferos205 How would it not be available to him, he's a counsel of rome
Jesus died in 33AD.Tacitus was born about 23 years later. Tacitus can't prove Jesus existed but by mentioning him on his writings he can give a good indication that he likely did.
He was born 20 years after Jesus died, any mention he makes of Jesus is not a first-hand account. Of all the evidence you could choose this one is pretty weak.
this mob is too dumb to work it out. They believe in something, not facts...
Proving existence is far different than proving divinity and miracles.
There were like millons of people in our history, that claimed to be able to do miracles, yet only one of them was able to convince literally everyone, that he's our messiah. How did he do it, if he wasn't real?
@@wurzelbert84wucher5 He convinced everyone? The Jews and Romans weren’t very convinced when they crucified him. And Muslims die for Islam. Does that make Islam “true”?
@@wurzelbert84wucher5 Muslims die for Islam. Does that make Islam true? If “literally” everyone was convinced, why wasn’t the whole world Christian? The majority of Jews weren’t even convinced.
Let us not rule out Emperor Guang Wu and his team of astronomers, who lived in the same time as Jesus.
"Yin and Yang have mistakenly switched, and the sun and moon were eclipsed. The sins of all the people are now on one man. Pardon is proclaimed to all under heaven.” -History of Latter Han Dynasty, Volume 1, Chronicles of Emperor Guang Wu, 7th year.
“In the day of Gui Hai, the last day of the month, there was a solar eclipse. [The emperor] avoided the Throne Room, suspended all military activities and did not handle official business for five days.” -History of Latter Han Dynasty, Vol. 1, Chronicles of Emperor Guang Wu, 7th year”.
Another historical record says:
“Eclipse on the day of Gui Hai, Man from Heaven died”. -History of Latter Han, Annals, No. 18, Gui Hai.
As we know, when Christ died there was darkness that covered the earth.
“From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.” -Mark 15:33.
Three days after the eclipse this was recorded by Chinese astronomers:
“During the reign of Emperor Guang Wu, on the day of Bing Yin of the fourth month of Jian Wu, a halo-a rainbow-encircled the sun.” History of Latter Han, Annals No. 18, Gui Hai.
Christ’s resurrection also apparently caused a celestial event that was observable to everyone...
this is about proving the existence of Jesus to all the idiots who still pretend that Jesus never existed.