I loved Python and still do. I saw LoB twice at the cinema, got the book, album blah blah. At times they weren’t particularly friendly to the LGBTQ+ family though & believe (anyone correct me if I’m wrong) there was a time they didn’t know Graham was gay. They were/are very intelligent and well educated men but we all have our bits of social conditioning so the gay/trans “comedy” hasn’t aged well. Can’t ever remember them doing blackface like the Goodies did a lot which even as a kid I never found funny.
@@andreafox7267 Graham told John Cleese he was gay in 1967. He and David adopted a son in 1971. He publicly came out on a TV show in 1972. Python started in 1969, and Life of Brian was released in 1979. It's a reasonable assumption that all the Pythons knew.
I think I used the word right. I means both "active at twilight" and "like twilight." I used it in the latter sense to convey that Cleese is at the twilight of his life.
it's a fact that nobody wrote about Jesus ( that we know of) during the time of his life ( say around 1AD-33AD), yet this was supposedly the Son of God, and he was performing supernatural miracles, you'd think that someone during that period would have written it down.
Every one of her supposed "Evidences are trash" They are all way late, Josephus in no way makes any claims to Jeebus's existence, he describes a messianic cults called christianity and mentions Jesus as their leader, and all from a position of "as I have been told" AKA: "Word is". Then she gets into the Romans... so what, that's like using articles about some harry potter cult someone will start in about 40 years, and someone finding them over a thousand years later claiming it's good evidence harry potter not only existed, but also did real magic! Other than that the whole bible has very little evidence for any of it but the existence of figs and donkeys (Not the kind that can talk) from page one to the last, and mountains of archeological, historical and other evidence against it!
Not. After He ressurected the prophecy and His words we're confirmed. Secondly, He was not interested in men writing about Him but going to the world and shared His teachings, which they did, and boy risk their lives, those we're their big concerns. Thirdly, the culture was oral culture, it was until early fourth Century, that the Catholic Church, set up a world Council due to many variations coming up regarding christianity, and they compiled the letters of ST Paul and others, the jewish Tanaj and voila The Bible.
@@peaceandlove544There is only a single source making the positive claim that Jesus existed: The bible! The two falsely claimed outside sources; Josephus and Flavius in no way shape or form make any such claim, and both are not giving christianity any truth whatsoever, but rather are writing hearsay about messianic cults and their beliefs and actions (reporting), Josephus does not claim to believe any of it, and Flavious doesn't sound convinced. As to the bible, it too has no writing by Jesus himself, nor do the stories in it line up well with each other, including one admitting it was in his head, and one is an obvious copy of another with minor changes, and a third very most likely derived from the other two, and also pointing at personal preference of how this Jesus should be seen, just as one can expect when people retell stories they never witnessed, and like those making up stories whole cloth! Don't forget the even more far out "Gospels" that were conveniently not included in the bible, by those controlling the narrative, almost as if they were like Woe dude! Now that may not work in our favor. So all you have is a single source that is literally fabricated to prop up this super hero the Hebrews claimed would come and make the whole world theirs (Not christians), because they were in a bad place and needed a savior. So let's entertain he did exist as the good book says, do you think just about everyone one who could write in such a populated place in his lifetime, even the vast majority of everyone who were not in any of the many messianic cults wouldn't have taken every opportunity to watch his every move and log it all in as close to real time they could? You bet they would, and so in the spirit of all truth and honesty there is zero viable evidence he existed at all, not even as a messianic cult leader dude, and all of the evidence points that he was invented later as a "Once upon a time" story like millions of others, and rather badly too for that matter! So you trying to use the bible as truth for anything, let alone as the evidence to it's own truth, is completely broken reasoning and self deception, because nothing works that way, and it's not how evidence will ever work! Any one who claims Jesus's existence as positive knowledge, can be dismissed without evidence, just as it's said without evidence, and extraordinary claims (all of the magic crap) need extraordinary evidence, not just anecdote and "My Heart", "My experience", My belief", nor "You can't disprove it" count for jack!
Life of Brian is less about Christ than it is about us humans. The "Bigus Dickus" scene is likely the funniest skit of all time, right up there with King Tut by Steve Martin on SNL. The entire movie is a historical hoot.
That's the joke: It's not at all about Jesus, let alone mocking him. It's about the hypocrisy of religious people. But mainly it's just very very funny.
My favorite is the "people's front of Judea/Judean people's front thing - "he's over there" is such a brilliant way to be both hilarious and also allude to the real, historical schisms in the anti Roman resistance in Palestine.
Blessed are the cheese makers... That one line has summed up for me exactly how people take a simple message and misinterpret or misrepresent it so often... :)
"The shoe! The shoe!" The missus and I watched "The Meaning of Life" last night. The Monty Pythons were a watershed not only in humour but in human thought. Respect, Mr. Cleese.
Either it was "Fishers of Men" or it wasn't. Things like this contribute to the confusion over New Testament texts over the centuries. After all these years who really knows what was said from the start? Life of Brian makes a lot of good points.
The Greek text says "halieis anthrōpōn". The word ánthrōpos meant "human being", as did Old English mann. There were separate words for male and female people specifically. When the Bible was first translated into English, it was still understood that "man" could refer to all of mankind, not just the males. These days we prefer the word "people" to avoid the possible implication that women were excluded.
No. 'halieis anthrōpōn' means worship the shoe, it is his shoe. And his gourd! @@robertfitzjohn4755
11 місяців тому+24
In my book, Life of Brian was the best film I've ever seen, and I'm 76 years of age. My first time was in Houston, TX, in 1980. The Americans laughed in all the wrong places! Every time I watch it, I discover a subtlety I'd missed previously. Absolute genius. Want some quotes? "Blessed are the cheese makers" "Let's go to the stoning" "What's it to you, big nose?" "How much do you hate the Romans?" ... "A lot." "Follow the gourd!" "That piece of halibut was fit for Jehovah" Nice beer gut, by the way, J.C. (Coincidence?) You could use a better wardrobe designer.
As a follower of Jesus, I found this helpful. I have heard about Josephus but not the Roman scholars, so thank you. There was a time when critics used to say there was little evidence that Jesus existed and now there is a lot of evidence, so pleased that this was reinforced. It was interesting that it was not the miracles that the leaders were interested in but where the power came from. I find it interesting that you see Jesus as a mystic, I can see what you are saying. I have a love:hate relationship with organised religion. I want to worship Jesus in Spirit and Truth. I meditate on the Lords Prayer every day for 30 minutes and pray for other areas. I find some elements of organised religion does get in the way. One thing that the Pythons got right was multiple crucifixions. Jesus was dead for 3 days and 3 nights so was it a Sunday when he rose? “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” They had an extra sabbath that week. Thank you for encouraging me to be more of a mystic in my Christian walk and that I need to be wary of some elements of organised religion.
Jesus could have existed, or could have been all made up. There is no good evidence that he did exist. There is evidence of people who never met him believing in him decades later. Richard Carrier wrote a book called "On the Historicity of Jesus", in which he addresses all of this evidence. His conclusion was probably not. Lot's of people don't like him. I don't care. He makes the case against. There are a billion others who make the case for. Put them side by side, and see for yourself. My contention is, if you set your standards of evidence as low as christian apologists, and you were consistent, you would be unable to exclude any of the other religions people believe in.
Josephus was born around the time Jesus would have died. So not an eyewitness. He mentions a number of Joshua's (not Jesus) like a sea Capitan and a crook. Then there is a section which is out of context, written in a different style than the rest of his stuff, talks about things that happened later as if had already happened,... most scholars reject this as later added by the Church. So NO, Josephus was neither a contemporary eyewitness nor actually wrote anything confirming the Biblical Jesus. But this is the only thing they have and are desperate to cling to it.
@@glenncurry3041 By "they," I assume that you mean the prots and other parts of the "outer" church. The creed is very clear in starting in description of our lord as "born of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, true god from true god, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father - through Him all things were made." This is not the description of an itinerant, peasant preacher, obviously. Did the Divine _Logos_ come to earth in human form? In some sense, of course we know this is true, or else we would be grunting at each other still. But best not to mistake an extended "meta-parable" for a news report. The woman in the video is self-deluded to say that Tacitus et al provide any evidence the likes of which she claims.
@@MarcillaSmith "They" is any Christian. At any time. Lacking any shred of factual support even for a specific personage to be the basis for the Jesus Christ of the Bible. The Jesus myth was created out of older existing stories at a later date. Not a single contemporary eyewitness.
Gosh...we need more videos like this. Two incredibly intelligent and engaging people having a lovely conversation on religion or politics or art or anything at all.
The problem with the Tacitus evidence is that it's not an independent source, he got that info from the Christians themselves. Probably Josephus also. Having said that, it's almost certain there was indeed a Yeshua ben Yosef who was crucified circa 30 CE. How much from this person is correctly depicted in the New Testament, well, that's another story.
We've actually no idea where Tacitus got his info from. Some argue that because Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, he may have used official sources from a Roman archive. There's no way of verifying this, although given his position as a senator, Tacitus was likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time. It could well be that he is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying, but as Rome's pre-eminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.
@@28johann1 it's the most plausible source, it's unlikely that Tacitus had taken the trouble to verify the records of a non-Roman citizen in distant Palestine, or even that such records existed, or survived the Jewish war. Tacitus lived in a time too late for 1st hand testimony about Jesus, and too early for Christians to have any major importance.
@@bearcb You may well be right - my comment was merely to correct your assertion that 'he got that info from the Christians', for which there is no evidence. Personally, I think that verification of the records is exactly what Tacitus would have done (there's other examples of highly marginal stuff that doesn't appear elsewhere). Don't forget also that Tacitus was a member of a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which makes it at least not unreasonable to suppose that he may have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through that body.
He should take the evil communists that vomited CRT into the world, to court for plagiarism. "You're racist if you deny you're racist" That's a direct ripoff of "Only the true messiah would deny his divinity"
How the hell are writings 60-100+ years after a supposed event "really good evidence"? There is no provable lineage between the supposed events and the writings. It's called legendary embellishment. In reality, there are no _contemporary_ non-biblical sources for a single thing in the buy-bull, which makes it indistinguishable from a work of fiction invented by ignorant and superstitious iron-age men.
So the first person to write about Jesus never even met him? That's like me writing about Abraham Lincoln. Where do I get my information? From what others say, that's where. That's why I call it *_"The Wholly Buy Bull."_*
Every single historian worthy of the name doesn't dispute the fact that the gospels are based on contemporary testimony (both oral and written). How they interpreted Jesus is what's important, in my view. To use your analogy, lots of people who met Lincoln compiled accounts about him, which then got incorporated into longer works. From the historians' point of view, just because you're writing a decade after the event doesn't make it false, and vice-versa, you have to make a judgement on all the evidence. Whole libraries have been written on this.
@@28johann1 Contemporary oral testimony may or may Not have existed. We have no record. Does any writing, that is contemporaneous to the life of Jesus, verify any supernatural events directly related to Jesus?
@@reasonablespeculation3893 Hiya. I'm only repeating what the vast majority of scholars agree on - this is one of the most written about subjects ever and am happy to send you a bibliography about academic thinking concerning oral testimony in the gospels. Your third sentence is another thing entirely - obviously, no amount of writing can 'verify a supernatural occurrence' (it being supernatural an' all) - even the gospels record that many doubted that Jesus had actually performed 'miracles'.
@28johann1 That's not even remotely true. Here's what a renown biblical scholar has to say on the subject: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier#:~:text=Despite%20his%20initial%20skepticism%20of,%5Bof%20Jesus%5D%2C%20as%20I
@28johann1 I have no problem accepting that an Arab Jew existed who became a religious icon in the first century but the son of God? Uh uh. Born of a virgin? Don't make me laugh. The penalty for adultery in those times was DEATH, so if she even existed, Mary wasn't a virgin, she was an adulterer and a liar. And it's well known that no one who wrote about Jesus even met the guy and nothing was written about him until at least 30 years after his death. It's all a bunch of unsupported nonsense.
“Gospel” is from a Greek word whose meaning is often described as “Good News”. That always reminds me of a product that emerged in the early ‘70’s called “Good News”: it was a plastic, disposable razor, made by the millions (at a time when there was a supposed “Energy Crisis” involving an oil shortage… but enough about Crapitalism for now), and featured a double-blade. It actually worked very well, and within a few years SNL produced a comedy skit about “The Triple Track”, 3 bladed disposable razor - that actually emerged by the late ‘70’s. Now, there are 5 blades. Each succeeding additional blade was accompanied by a “new and improved” set of commercials… and that’s how the modern “Good News” was exactly like the old “Good News” Gospels: Commercials - each succeeding one, featured decades after the last, added something magical: Oh, “Love thy neighbor” not good enough? Well, how about walking on water, raising the dead, etc? Each succeeding product made more outlandish claims to draw in more customers… Good News, huh?
I think that faith is of the heart and religion is man-made and profitable. I keep my beliefs simple, without ceremonies that also serve as social gatherings. I respect good people who have faith or good social behavior. It's what they do that matters to me. I like this mantra, too -- "Judge not lest ye be judged" and so many people seem to judge others these days, on a whim? Judgement is not my forte, but common sense is, I think.
You, like everyone else, forget to quote the entire passage. Judge not lest ye be judged, for by the same measure you judge others, so to will you be judged, therefore, judge righteously. It's literally telling Christians to judge but do so righteously which is to say not be guilty ourselves. There is so much myth and nonsense about Christianity because people repeat quotes without reading the Bible for themselves.
The best bits in The Life of Brian are the postmodernist revolutionaries. Some of those bits are still relevant today, maybe more relevant than at the time.
I stopped believing in a God when I was about 11 or 12yrs old. I read The Devils of Loudon by the late, great Aldous Huxley when I was about 30, and it was a very enlightening experience. I gained respect and understanding of theology for the first time, as opposed to religious dogma. I have since had an open mind.
Helen Bond @ 3:52> "There's a Jewish historian called Josephus [...] He's got no particular axe to grind." Bond seems to imply that Josephus is a relatively trustworthy source. Josephus was a Jewish historian and military general captured by the Roman Army, who then claimed a prophesy that Vespasian, the military commander who captured him, would become emperor. After that came to pass two years later, Vespasian adopted him. A prisoner of war who comes to serve and flatter his captors isn't generally considered a very trustworthy source.
The Roman Empire captured Josephus in the First Jewish-Roman War. He was co-opted (adopted) as a writer by the Emperor himself. I suppose it's possible the Emperor had no desire to direct his output, but I'm not going to make that assumption.
How about the impact of religion on school children? I went to a Church of England comprehensive school, with 240 11-year-olds starting out as young people open for guidance and direction. I swear to you within five years 230 of us were committed atheists!
The two people mentioned as non christians writing about Jesus and the powerful 'colt' that was started, said that "This is what the christians claimed happened". They did not say "This is what happened". Only a small change but a big difference I find.
Fishers of MEN, thank you. I am so sick of this anti-male feminist destruction of language. Men is another way of saying mankind which is simply another way of saying PEOPLE! Don't be a spaz!
She might be smiling but her body language is very negative, especially when she’s discussing what she believes are negative aspects of LoB. Blessed are the cheese makers.
Thanks for sharing this. It was very informative. Shedding light on existence of Jesus. And how early days of what would become organized religion viewed women and their role in it.
There's several seemingly small details that have slipped into the gospels that actually are quite significant. In Mark 6:3 the local people are saying "Isn't this the carpenter, *_the son of Mary_* ?" What most people don't realize, this was an extreme insult in the Jewish tradition. Not calling somebody using his father's lineage (ben Joseph) but his mother's lineage (ben Miriam) indicates that he's a bastard, somebody who's father is not known. It's not a proof of anything, thou. There can't be any definite proof, for or against, in those matters. Whoever is looking for it is chasing his own shadow...
One of my very favorite movies of my entire 84 years. "He is a very naughty boy" and the sermon on the mount that nobody can hear. Refreshing. I don't think much about religeon.
She says that Jesus' life is well documented, but it's really odd that someone who was reputed to be a literal god born in a human body and who was supposedly made a big fuss over when he was born, but then was completely ignored for 30 years when we know nothing at all about him, then we get 4 conflicting accounts from guys who claimed to have known him from ages 30 to 33 or so. It sounds like two stories spliced together, a nativity tale stuck together with an account of a radical preacher who was crucified.
Agree on Nativity tales - clearly added at a later date in two of the gospels. Not sure about the rest of your assertions. 'Reputed to be a literal god born in a human body' is awkward, for most scholars view this as a later theological development from the gospels, whilst your statement, 'completely ignored for 30 years' is, i'm afraid, not right given that Paul was writing 20 years after Jesus' death to communities already existing. There are 4 conflicting accounts, but, as any fule no, Matthew, Luke and Mark are also very similar - unsurprisingly so (being drawn from the same sources!). John is another thing altogether, and there are literal libraries written on it. They are the work of many authors and reflect the communities for which they were written - at least part of which, the vast majority of scholars (both Christian and non-Christian agree) were drawn from oral testimony. Taken as a whole, i agree their testimony is definitely of a 'radical preacher crucified', but, I'd suggest, this raises more questions than answers - especially, what made him so radical? There's probably at least a hundred stories spliced here, and whether you're a believer or not, this is some story which merits more thought than your (dare I say) rather lazy statement here.
@@28johann1 I meant that there's 30 years missing in Jesus's story from age 1 to age 33. It is suspicious that no Christians I've ever encountered have been curious as to what happened to Jesus during this time in his life?
@@rozzgrey801 I don't think there's much debate on this to be fair. Historically, this was a 'working-class' person who would have gone unnoticed, and then, later, theologically, his followers would claim that it's precisely because he was unknown and obscure that make his/their claims more plausible than if he'd been someone 'famous'.
Josephus was a jewish slave from the Flavius family. He himself came from an interesting family too. After he was 'freed' he became part of the family. It's an interesting puzzle. You might come to the conclusion the bible is a political book filled with astrological and gnostic knowledge. If you dive a bit deeper you'll find the lines of these people/families end up in high places. it's an interesting and confrontational journey
This woman is totally wrong about Paul the apostle. Paul did not allow women to be in a superior position to the men. He laid the foundation of the church outside of Jerusalem. Paul's Church among the Gentiles is the one that endured and it remains predominate in the world today. This woman exhibits one of the apostacies which are so prevalent in the Church today.
0h dear. Who was 'superior' to whom in the first century church? There were a variety of ministries depending on where you were, with many senior positions (eg as heads of ' house churches') held by women. Paul (and others) may have laid the foundations, but this wasn't a 'church' in a modern sense ('embryonic churches' would be better). It's a much later, theological (i would say un-historical) development to equate the first century Christian movement' with the Church today (not sure which you mean, but you sound like a Catholic (in which case deep sympathies, so am I).
KJV is not Catholic and I am not a Catholic. However, in the KJV Paul is very clear on the roles of men and women and, no, women were not allowed positions of authority in the Church. This is all moot since the modern church in all its ministries can be regarded as apostate.@@28johann1
What’s been mostly lost and recently recovered from history was that Jesus first had an unsuccessful career as a performance DJ. The technology just wasn’t ready and instead of vinyl the discs were made of stone.
Man/men/mankind are often used interchangeably in The Bible. God made man means God made mankind/human beings. When referring to an individual man, the Bible often labels them by their name, profession etc... very rarely if ever 'a man came along'. 'A Samaritan came saying...' 'Nicodemus, a Pharisee...'
We don't know, of course - Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic, but the Gospel writers in this passage use, in Greek, the word 'anthropos' (literally - humanity, all people, everyone).
"...at the 3rd day, women come back to find the tomb empty" Being raised Catholic, I always found this puzzling, but now, easily answered - Jesus was not dead! Merely woke after a coma and leveraged himself between the stone door, proceeded to gain his bearing, and rejoined those that he was close to, only to succumb to his injuries, later. Jesus may have been a good man, especially as revealed later in his life, but was nothing more than just another man. After all, all religions and beliefs were brought about by man's fear of the unknown in very, very, very dark times. Where many religions around the world play host to good morals, there is only one religion that need not be on earth because it has recently been written that over 57% of almost 2 billion people want everyone else dead. How could this possibly be good for the vast majority of people who strive for the betterment of the human race ¿`_
First bit is fine but then you go off on some other tangent. I'm persuaded by Geza Vermes' argument that the 'empty tomb' thing is a re-working of Daniel in the lion's den (Dan 6:22) which would have been known to people reading this passage. Anything to do with the Resurrection seems to be take us away from history and into 'faith'. Where religions 'come from', and whether it's 'good' (as you know i suspect!) are other things entirely
When I was going to school in New Zealand ,from 1969 to 1979 ,there was nothing in the way of religious studies at all ,I'm sure there would have been though in some of the private schools.
We has a 'religion' lesson once a week at my school which was taken by the Headmaster. It became obvious he was an atheist, and we were encouraged to study all religions from a neutral point of view. We discussed the 'miracles' and he had quite reasonable explanations of them. His view was that there was quite likely a person of that era who was in fact a freedom fighter protesting the occupation of the land by the Romans. That's why they had to get rid of him as his following grew larger.
Historians often neglect Jesus’s troubled childhood where his siblings thought he had a big, shiny head, going on and on about being God’s favorite son. He also hated having his birthday on Christmas, which meant his parents just gave him all his presents at once.
Paul did write that only man are to serve in the ministry, and the 12 apostles where men and they where to spread the gospel. And since they were men, it was a natural process of adopting the Roman military hierarchy, at the same time proving point of Christianity that nothing is inherently evil and everything can be used for good. Females had different roles, very important too, but where not part of the male hierarchy, precisely because their hierarchy naturally is much more flat. At the same time the lady omitted the fact that Mother Mary was the leading figure in formation of the middle eastern churches. Could go on. Other than that, huge fan of the Pythons. Seen their movies multiple times I lost the count. When I was a kid I've seen their shows so many times I could repeat them from memory.
Strange how these historic accounts only occur 60 years after his life. It'll literally be like me writing and attributing things to a random soldier during ww2 when people memories have faded and most if not all first hand accounts have died and gone.
Not really. Some people leave their memories very late in life, even when close to death. Also what she said is that's the first recorded one they have that still exists. It's not like they had backup hard drives or Google to save their work. Not only with this, but with many historical things, it is not to say that stuff was not written down in a book and simply lost, or destroyed. If you have not heard about them, look at the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in the 1980s. They had been there for 2000 years, and if you see where they were found, it's a total miracle they were even found. This leaves it open to what else is still hidden away to be found or never found.
Sort of, but by your own premise it would be a bit odd for quite a few reputable historians all talking about the same bloke. For me, it's not so much the historical likelihood of Jesus' existence (balance of probabilities, id say highly likely) as to the interpretations of who he was. Why he was turned into a God i find much more interesting
@@28johann1 I am fully behind Jesus's existence, and I do have faith, all be it not conventional, but I do also wonder how much some writings were, for a better word, embellished. That's the problem with old history; unless you have multiple accounts and from different viewpoints, you can never be 100% sure things happened the way they did, but this is where faith would come into it.
@@mrmrgaming Broadly agree. 'Faith' is another dimension entirely. True at the time of Jesus, as even the Gospel writers' state ('many doubted: Matt 28:17 ') as with now. There is no 'proof'.
Firstly, she literally just explained that Paul was writing about him around only ten years after (Paul is writing in the 40s, Jesus crucifixion was in around 33 although we can’t know for sure). And secondly, it’s actually not strange at all for sources to originate from 60 years after if you understand that for non-Christians, the significance of the events of Jesus’ crucifixion largely only come into focus AFTER the fact… decades later his followers are STILL around, so now it’s more historically significant. Also it’s possible that (and this is my own personal guess here) writing about what occured during Pilate’s term really only happens after Pilate is gone? So it’s a summary after the fact. You can’t assume people 2000 years ago had the same attitudes to history as we have now, or the same degree of scholarship or the same motives regarding preservation of the historical record as a scholar might have now. And you can’t assume they’re going to know at the time what might become his rivalry significant after the fact.
"Women had already been pushed down and supressed" says the lady. Obviously she's not terribly acquainted with Saints Felicity, Agatha, Perpetua, Anastasia, etc, etc. The problem with some people is that they are obsessed with power in a wordly sense and so if people don't have power in a wordly sense then they are "suppressed". Neither did Paul ever refer to any women as apostles. The only people referred to in the Bible as apostles are the twelve apointed by Jesus, the successor to Judas Iscariot and Paul.
You're right in the first half of your piece and wrong in the second. She's right that women were progressively marginalised, and right again that this was a later development - early ministry (and there were many forms of course) clearly involved women. Sadly (in my view), during the late/apostolic/early medieval age ministry did become also about power, and became male-dominated, and this practice of seeing 'apostles' as exclusively male coloured Catholic thinking for centuries.
Some religions are obviously anti-science, but the Catholic Church is not intuitively anti-science (many scientists in history have actually been clergymen). I know that Galileo is often quoted as a supreme example of the Church as anti-science (largely kept alive by New Atheism/Aggressive Secularism), but this was a political move by an over-zealous Pope who was more concerned about his/The Church's position in the midst of what is now known as the 100 Years War. Galileo was perceived as weakening this worldly position by questioning the theology of the Church. As crazy as it sounds, sadly humans leading the Church thought that people's redemption was also at stake. I always say that "the Church was founded by Christ, but run by humans", hence the various examples of it moving away from the core message of Christ - peace, love, forgive etc - and instead adopting a more (and indeed contradictory) secular approach to its raison d'etre.
Mary Magdalena wrote a gospel, her Sister Ruth as well, they wrote to Paul and he to them much later refered when they had passed yet he walked on to build the Churches. Mary Wrote a Gospel, look it up.
To think she (or should I say they them) actually believes all this is fact. Good for her (opps again) if it makes her happy but this is far from an objective analysis.
Jesus didn't channel "God" or evil spirits, he said: "your faith has made you well." That means that the power to make you well or unwell is internal and dependent on your mindset and beliefs. Since those items are part of structures that make up your internal psychology i.e. you have the ability to change them, the power to heal is intrinsic to you. Jesus's profoundidity is in the accessibility of his understanding of the worlds function. How reality functions: that is: "the kingdom is neither here nor there it is within you." Changing reality is about changing your mind. The meek will inherit the Earth is another way of saying the realization of values held within will necessarily result in their realization without.
Don't be fooled. Just because Josephus was trying to start a religion by writing about Jesus doesn't mean that he actually existed. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Paul most certainly does not talk about female deacons or Apostles since there were none. If you see female clergy, your group is not a church and has gone completely off the rails.
What I learned from The Life of Brian is that he was crucified because of a Roman’s hilarious speech impediment. If Jesus had an “r,” he would’ve been saved from crucifixion, thus derailing Christianity’s existence.
The issue of the existence of Jesus requires a closer look. Did there exist a person at the time, claiming to be the son of the Jewish God? Possibly, although some suggest that the person in New Testament (whose birth and death are documented in detail, but many years between completely missing) is a composition of accounts of different agitators and rebel leaders. So the existence of a self-proclaimed prophet, as presented in the New Testament is one issue which can be argued. A completely different problem is to claim that that person had supernatural abilities.
Life Of Brian was banned in Norway and the swedish poster for the film had a tagline - Life of Brian is so funny they banned it in Norway🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂😂
Especially interesting, considering how secular Norway is now.
The poster for The Holy Grail: Makes Ben Hur Look Like an Epic!
Now we just need to look into how The Life of Brian has impacted gender studies.
Perfect!
I loved Python and still do. I saw LoB twice at the cinema, got the book, album blah blah. At times they weren’t particularly friendly to the LGBTQ+ family though & believe (anyone correct me if I’m wrong) there was a time they didn’t know Graham was gay. They were/are very intelligent and well educated men but we all have our bits of social conditioning so the gay/trans “comedy” hasn’t aged well. Can’t ever remember them doing blackface like the Goodies did a lot which even as a kid I never found funny.
Loretta 😊
Actually, ask Loretta. She's my favourite.
@@andreafox7267 Graham told John Cleese he was gay in 1967. He and David adopted a son in 1971. He publicly came out on a TV show in 1972. Python started in 1969, and Life of Brian was released in 1979. It's a reasonable assumption that all the Pythons knew.
Thank you for The Life of Brian, one of the most entertaining movies ever.
The best Bible movie ever made!
I owned Life of Brian and watched it many times and it still brings laughter
Let us all furiously enjoy this man while he's still with us at his crepuscular, gleefully cantankerous best.
crepuscular - that word doesn't mean what I think you think it means.
quite possibly :)
@@guepardiez My python is crepuscular. I'm not sure about the members of Monty.
I think I used the word right. I means both "active at twilight" and "like twilight." I used it in the latter sense to convey that Cleese is at the twilight of his life.
it's a fact that nobody wrote about Jesus ( that we know of) during the time of his life ( say around 1AD-33AD), yet this was supposedly the Son of God, and he was performing supernatural miracles, you'd think that someone during that period would have written it down.
I also find that very surprising. Or telling.
Every one of her supposed "Evidences are trash" They are all way late, Josephus in no way makes any claims to Jeebus's existence, he describes a messianic cults called christianity and mentions Jesus as their leader, and all from a position of "as I have been told" AKA: "Word is". Then she gets into the Romans... so what, that's like using articles about some harry potter cult someone will start in about 40 years, and someone finding them over a thousand years later claiming it's good evidence harry potter not only existed, but also did real magic!
Other than that the whole bible has very little evidence for any of it but the existence of figs and donkeys (Not the kind that can talk) from page one to the last, and mountains of archeological, historical and other evidence against it!
In a country and a time where 99% of people were not literate, I'm not sure why you are surprised...
Not. After He ressurected the prophecy and His words we're confirmed. Secondly, He was not interested in men writing about Him but going to the world and shared His teachings, which they did, and boy risk their lives, those we're their big concerns. Thirdly, the culture was oral culture, it was until early fourth Century, that the Catholic Church, set up a world Council due to many variations coming up regarding christianity, and they compiled the letters of ST Paul and others, the jewish Tanaj and voila The Bible.
@@peaceandlove544There is only a single source making the positive claim that Jesus existed: The bible! The two falsely claimed outside sources; Josephus and Flavius in no way shape or form make any such claim, and both are not giving christianity any truth whatsoever, but rather are writing hearsay about messianic cults and their beliefs and actions (reporting), Josephus does not claim to believe any of it, and Flavious doesn't sound convinced.
As to the bible, it too has no writing by Jesus himself, nor do the stories in it line up well with each other, including one admitting it was in his head, and one is an obvious copy of another with minor changes, and a third very most likely derived from the other two, and also pointing at personal preference of how this Jesus should be seen, just as one can expect when people retell stories they never witnessed, and like those making up stories whole cloth! Don't forget the even more far out "Gospels" that were conveniently not included in the bible, by those controlling the narrative, almost as if they were like Woe dude! Now that may not work in our favor.
So all you have is a single source that is literally fabricated to prop up this super hero the Hebrews claimed would come and make the whole world theirs (Not christians), because they were in a bad place and needed a savior. So let's entertain he did exist as the good book says, do you think just about everyone one who could write in such a populated place in his lifetime, even the vast majority of everyone who were not in any of the many messianic cults wouldn't have taken every opportunity to watch his every move and log it all in as close to real time they could? You bet they would, and so in the spirit of all truth and honesty there is zero viable evidence he existed at all, not even as a messianic cult leader dude, and all of the evidence points that he was invented later as a "Once upon a time" story like millions of others, and rather badly too for that matter!
So you trying to use the bible as truth for anything, let alone as the evidence to it's own truth, is completely broken reasoning and self deception, because nothing works that way, and it's not how evidence will ever work! Any one who claims Jesus's existence as positive knowledge, can be dismissed without evidence, just as it's said without evidence, and extraordinary claims (all of the magic crap) need extraordinary evidence, not just anecdote and "My Heart", "My experience", My belief", nor "You can't disprove it" count for jack!
Life of Brian is less about Christ than it is about us humans. The "Bigus Dickus" scene is likely the funniest skit of all time, right up there with King Tut by Steve Martin on SNL. The entire movie is a historical hoot.
That's the joke: It's not at all about Jesus, let alone mocking him. It's about the hypocrisy of religious people. But mainly it's just very very funny.
My favorite is the "people's front of Judea/Judean people's front thing - "he's over there" is such a brilliant way to be both hilarious and also allude to the real, historical schisms in the anti Roman resistance in Palestine.
Blessed are the cheese makers...
That one line has summed up for me exactly how people take a simple message and misinterpret or misrepresent it so often... :)
"The shoe! The shoe!"
The missus and I watched "The Meaning of Life" last night. The Monty Pythons were a watershed not only in humour but in human thought. Respect, Mr. Cleese.
Ignore the shoe, follow the Gourd!!
Blessed are the cheesemakers.
(Greetings from Wisconsin)
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition....
It's the Comfy Chair and the Soft Pillows for YOU!
The English and German we're no better. Even worse, ask the Irish.
Either it was "Fishers of Men" or it wasn't. Things like this contribute to the confusion over New Testament texts over the centuries. After all these years who really knows what was said from the start? Life of Brian makes a lot of good points.
The Greek text says "halieis anthrōpōn". The word ánthrōpos meant "human being", as did Old English mann. There were separate words for male and female people specifically.
When the Bible was first translated into English, it was still understood that "man" could refer to all of mankind, not just the males. These days we prefer the word "people" to avoid the possible implication that women were excluded.
No. 'halieis anthrōpōn' means worship the shoe, it is his shoe. And his gourd! @@robertfitzjohn4755
In my book, Life of Brian was the best film I've ever seen, and I'm 76 years of age. My first time was in Houston, TX, in 1980. The Americans laughed in all the wrong places! Every time I watch it, I discover a subtlety I'd missed previously. Absolute genius.
Want some quotes?
"Blessed are the cheese makers"
"Let's go to the stoning"
"What's it to you, big nose?"
"How much do you hate the Romans?" ... "A lot."
"Follow the gourd!"
"That piece of halibut was fit for Jehovah"
Nice beer gut, by the way, J.C. (Coincidence?) You could use a better wardrobe designer.
that gut could part the Red Sea
"What have the Romans ever done for us?"
I'm Brian, and so's my wife!
I refuse to believe There’s a wrong place to laugh during Life of Brian
As a follower of Jesus, I found this helpful. I have heard about Josephus but not the Roman scholars, so thank you. There was a time when critics used to say there was little evidence that Jesus existed and now there is a lot of evidence, so pleased that this was reinforced. It was interesting that it was not the miracles that the leaders were interested in but where the power came from. I find it interesting that you see Jesus as a mystic, I can see what you are saying. I have a love:hate relationship with organised religion. I want to worship Jesus in Spirit and Truth. I meditate on the Lords Prayer every day for 30 minutes and pray for other areas. I find some elements of organised religion does get in the way. One thing that the Pythons got right was multiple crucifixions. Jesus was dead for 3 days and 3 nights so was it a Sunday when he rose? “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” They had an extra sabbath that week. Thank you for encouraging me to be more of a mystic in my Christian walk and that I need to be wary of some elements of organised religion.
Jesus could have existed, or could have been all made up. There is no good evidence that he did exist. There is evidence of people who never met him believing in him decades later. Richard Carrier wrote a book called "On the Historicity of Jesus", in which he addresses all of this evidence. His conclusion was probably not. Lot's of people don't like him. I don't care. He makes the case against. There are a billion others who make the case for. Put them side by side, and see for yourself. My contention is, if you set your standards of evidence as low as christian apologists, and you were consistent, you would be unable to exclude any of the other religions people believe in.
Josephus was born around the time Jesus would have died. So not an eyewitness. He mentions a number of Joshua's (not Jesus) like a sea Capitan and a crook. Then there is a section which is out of context, written in a different style than the rest of his stuff, talks about things that happened later as if had already happened,... most scholars reject this as later added by the Church.
So NO, Josephus was neither a contemporary eyewitness nor actually wrote anything confirming the Biblical Jesus. But this is the only thing they have and are desperate to cling to it.
@@glenncurry3041 By "they," I assume that you mean the prots and other parts of the "outer" church. The creed is very clear in starting in description of our lord as "born of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, true god from true god, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father - through Him all things were made." This is not the description of an itinerant, peasant preacher, obviously.
Did the Divine _Logos_ come to earth in human form? In some sense, of course we know this is true, or else we would be grunting at each other still. But best not to mistake an extended "meta-parable" for a news report. The woman in the video is self-deluded to say that Tacitus et al provide any evidence the likes of which she claims.
@@MarcillaSmith "They" is any Christian. At any time. Lacking any shred of factual support even for a specific personage to be the basis for the Jesus Christ of the Bible. The Jesus myth was created out of older existing stories at a later date. Not a single contemporary eyewitness.
@@glenncurry3041 Ok, so you're either a bot or otherwise lack reading comprehension.
Gosh...we need more videos like this. Two incredibly intelligent and engaging people having a lovely conversation on religion or politics or art or anything at all.
John Cleese is NOT a national treasure. he is a global treasure. when he's gone, we all should feel the loss.
The problem with the Tacitus evidence is that it's not an independent source, he got that info from the Christians themselves. Probably Josephus also. Having said that, it's almost certain there was indeed a Yeshua ben Yosef who was crucified circa 30 CE. How much from this person is correctly depicted in the New Testament, well, that's another story.
We've actually no idea where Tacitus got his info from. Some argue that because Tacitus at times had drawn on earlier historical works now lost to us, he may have used official sources from a Roman archive. There's no way of verifying this, although given his position as a senator, Tacitus was likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time. It could well be that he is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying, but as Rome's pre-eminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.
@@28johann1 it's the most plausible source, it's unlikely that Tacitus had taken the trouble to verify the records of a non-Roman citizen in distant Palestine, or even that such records existed, or survived the Jewish war. Tacitus lived in a time too late for 1st hand testimony about Jesus, and too early for Christians to have any major importance.
@@bearcb You may well be right - my comment was merely to correct your assertion that 'he got that info from the Christians', for which there is no evidence. Personally, I think that verification of the records is exactly what Tacitus would have done (there's other examples of highly marginal stuff that doesn't appear elsewhere). Don't forget also that Tacitus was a member of a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which makes it at least not unreasonable to suppose that he may have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through that body.
Before Constantine, Christianity focused on people, after Constantine, it focused on things (position and power).
Would watch a full series of this!
I watch The Life of Brian every Christmas!👏🤣
“Life of Brian” was 40+ years ahead of its time and the insanity of “Woke”.
Weaponising a 1979 British comedy film.
@@martynblackburn9632 - 🤣😂🤣
Quite. Then it was blasphemy, now it's Loretta
@@28johann1 I think the actual problem was it's shlit.
He should take the evil communists that vomited CRT into the world, to court for plagiarism.
"You're racist if you deny you're racist" That's a direct ripoff of "Only the true messiah would deny his divinity"
A beautiful example of "you become what you oppose".
Thanks for the lesson, Pastor John ;)
How the hell are writings 60-100+ years after a supposed event "really good evidence"? There is no provable lineage between the supposed events and the writings. It's called legendary embellishment.
In reality, there are no _contemporary_ non-biblical sources for a single thing in the buy-bull, which makes it indistinguishable from a work of fiction invented by ignorant and superstitious iron-age men.
So the first person to write about Jesus never even met him? That's like me writing about Abraham Lincoln. Where do I get my information? From what others say, that's where.
That's why I call it *_"The Wholly Buy Bull."_*
Every single historian worthy of the name doesn't dispute the fact that the gospels are based on contemporary testimony (both oral and written). How they interpreted Jesus is what's important, in my view. To use your analogy, lots of people who met Lincoln compiled accounts about him, which then got incorporated into longer works. From the historians' point of view, just because you're writing a decade after the event doesn't make it false, and vice-versa, you have to make a judgement on all the evidence. Whole libraries have been written on this.
@@28johann1 Contemporary oral testimony may or may Not have existed. We have no record.
Does any writing, that is contemporaneous to the life of Jesus, verify any supernatural events directly
related to Jesus?
@@reasonablespeculation3893 Hiya. I'm only repeating what the vast majority of scholars agree on - this is one of the most written about subjects ever and am happy to send you a bibliography about academic thinking concerning oral testimony in the gospels. Your third sentence is another thing entirely - obviously, no amount of writing can 'verify a supernatural occurrence' (it being supernatural an' all) - even the gospels record that many doubted that Jesus had actually performed 'miracles'.
@28johann1 That's not even remotely true. Here's what a renown biblical scholar has to say on the subject:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier#:~:text=Despite%20his%20initial%20skepticism%20of,%5Bof%20Jesus%5D%2C%20as%20I
@28johann1 I have no problem accepting that an Arab Jew existed who became a religious icon in the first century but the son of God? Uh uh.
Born of a virgin? Don't make me laugh. The penalty for adultery in those times was DEATH, so if she even existed, Mary wasn't a virgin, she was an adulterer and a liar. And it's well known that no one who wrote about Jesus even met the guy and nothing was written about him until at least 30 years after his death.
It's all a bunch of unsupported nonsense.
“Gospel” is from a Greek word whose meaning is often described as “Good News”. That always reminds me of a product that emerged in the early ‘70’s called “Good News”: it was a plastic, disposable razor, made by the millions (at a time when there was a supposed “Energy Crisis” involving an oil shortage… but enough about Crapitalism for now), and featured a double-blade. It actually worked very well, and within a few years SNL produced a comedy skit about “The Triple Track”, 3 bladed disposable razor - that actually emerged by the late ‘70’s. Now, there are 5 blades. Each succeeding additional blade was accompanied by a “new and improved” set of commercials… and that’s how the modern “Good News” was exactly like the old “Good News” Gospels: Commercials - each succeeding one, featured decades after the last, added something magical: Oh, “Love thy neighbor” not good enough? Well, how about walking on water, raising the dead, etc? Each succeeding product made more outlandish claims to draw in more customers… Good News, huh?
And like that other razor advert, they are double edged swords.
I think that faith is of the heart and religion is man-made and profitable.
I keep my beliefs simple, without ceremonies that also serve as social gatherings.
I respect good people who have faith or good social behavior. It's what they do that matters to me. I like this mantra, too -- "Judge not lest ye be judged" and so many people seem to judge others these days, on a whim? Judgement is not my forte, but common sense is, I think.
You, like everyone else, forget to quote the entire passage.
Judge not lest ye be judged, for by the same measure you judge others, so to will you be judged, therefore, judge righteously.
It's literally telling Christians to judge but do so righteously which is to say not be guilty ourselves.
There is so much myth and nonsense about Christianity because people repeat quotes without reading the Bible for themselves.
The best bits in The Life of Brian are the postmodernist revolutionaries. Some of those bits are still relevant today, maybe more relevant than at the time.
Life of Brian should be church Canon
I want to know why the nun in the background has her head on the table.
Blind drunk🤣
We watched LOB last night after we came home from Christmas dinner! Happy Holiday to you, Mr. Cleese, and to us all~!
What a delightful charming lady. An academic historian with humour. I didn't know they existed
The Wokiwoman cannot be "charming" or "delightful".
@@egverlander Why not?
Because you can never be relaxed and a natural self. Always on guard, tense in wait of a woke violation.
I stopped believing in a God when I was about 11 or 12yrs old. I read The Devils of Loudon by the late, great Aldous Huxley when I was about 30, and it was a very enlightening experience. I gained respect and understanding of theology for the first time, as opposed to religious dogma. I have since had an open mind.
You have an open mind to theology but you don't believe in God?
@@garymitchell5899Off course, it is total cobblers
Believe in what? Sky fairies. @@garymitchell5899
About 3000 years ago David was 11 or 12 years old like you were. He believed in a God. But you were obviously far more enlightened than he was.
Obviously.@@missasinenomine
I still laugh and laugh every time I watch this video, a classic.
Helen Bond @ 3:52> "There's a Jewish historian called Josephus [...] He's got no particular axe to grind."
Bond seems to imply that Josephus is a relatively trustworthy source. Josephus was a Jewish historian and military general captured by the Roman Army, who then claimed a prophesy that Vespasian, the military commander who captured him, would become emperor. After that came to pass two years later, Vespasian adopted him. A prisoner of war who comes to serve and flatter his captors isn't generally considered a very trustworthy source.
I think she meant on the subject at hand, namely Jesus. But perhaps it would be better to say that he didn't have a horse in the race.
The Roman Empire captured Josephus in the First Jewish-Roman War. He was co-opted (adopted) as a writer by the Emperor himself. I suppose it's possible the Emperor had no desire to direct his output, but I'm not going to make that assumption.
It was awful to hear this lady say “now we say people” (instead of men). Women weren’t “pushed down and oppressed” either.
esp when man is short for mankind which is an abbreviation of (hu)mankind
She was a bloody feminist! The follower of an evil Marxist-like ideology
Such a needless distraction. The fact that it's "from the day", but she still needs to project recent modernity.
Or, as the Lord's Prayer should now be: "Our Person who art in heaven ...."
Ha yes! Life of Brian is the shit!
Just a quick reminder that the DFS Furniture sale is still on. Started in 1970 apparently. 🤪
How about the impact of religion on school children? I went to a Church of England comprehensive school, with 240 11-year-olds starting out as young people open for guidance and direction. I swear to you within five years 230 of us were committed atheists!
Best synthesis I have heard.
Grown up TV in 2023 - perhaps there’s hope for us after all.
Thank you Mr Cleese and GB News - no wonder Ofcom and the BBC want it closed down.
One of the Best🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Imagine a film parodying Muhammed 😆
Quite. We'd all be dead before nightfall.
@28johann1 French teachers scared to show kids art now. Cos it bloody offends Muslims 😆
With pleasure.
Can't offend the Satan worshippers, the secular system protects them at all costs
@@ffs6158 To be fair, the 'secular system' protects us all?
If Jesus was a gifted healer indeed, why doesn't Paul mention this even once? I think Richard Carrier has a better story to tell.
"When I was a boy..."
That start for a sentence can already offend/trigger someone today. Somehow.
Blessed are the cheese makers.
It’s not meant to be taken literally; it’s a reference to any manufacturer of dairy products…😂
The two people mentioned as non christians writing about Jesus and the powerful 'colt' that was started, said that "This is what the christians claimed happened". They did not say "This is what happened". Only a small change but a big difference I find.
Fishers of MEN, thank you. I am so sick of this anti-male feminist destruction of language. Men is another way of saying mankind which is simply another way of saying PEOPLE! Don't be a spaz!
She might be smiling but her body language is very negative, especially when she’s discussing what she believes are negative aspects of LoB. Blessed are the cheese makers.
The perennial philosophy by Aldous Huxley. Great book.
Thanks for sharing this. It was very informative. Shedding light on existence of Jesus. And how early days of what would become organized religion viewed women and their role in it.
"Women come back to the tomb."
Surely she meant to say "People come back to the tomb"?
There's several seemingly small details that have slipped into the gospels that actually are quite significant.
In Mark 6:3 the local people are saying "Isn't this the carpenter, *_the son of Mary_* ?"
What most people don't realize, this was an extreme insult in the Jewish tradition. Not calling somebody using his father's lineage (ben Joseph) but his mother's lineage (ben Miriam) indicates that he's a bastard, somebody who's father is not known.
It's not a proof of anything, thou. There can't be any definite proof, for or against, in those matters. Whoever is looking for it is chasing his own shadow...
How happy is she to be asked about this topic - And by Python.
One of my very favorite movies of my entire 84 years. "He is a very naughty boy" and the sermon on the mount that nobody can hear. Refreshing. I don't think much about religeon.
There’s no messiah in here. There’s a mess alright but no messiah.
Jesus (was that what he was known as?) was a real person who would be verbally assaulted by conservative bible thumpers in America today.
People complained it made fun of Jesus, but it actually made fun of Jewish culture. They have a sense of humor though and were not offended.
This interview is one of the best gifts that I get from Santa Claus in my entire life 😂😂😂
"He says he's not the messiah, only the real messah would say that" Classic Python.
She says that Jesus' life is well documented, but it's really odd that someone who was reputed to be a literal god born in a human body and who was supposedly made a big fuss over when he was born, but then was completely ignored for 30 years when we know nothing at all about him, then we get 4 conflicting accounts from guys who claimed to have known him from ages 30 to 33 or so. It sounds like two stories spliced together, a nativity tale stuck together with an account of a radical preacher who was crucified.
Agree on Nativity tales - clearly added at a later date in two of the gospels. Not sure about the rest of your assertions. 'Reputed to be a literal god born in a human body' is awkward, for most scholars view this as a later theological development from the gospels, whilst your statement, 'completely ignored for 30 years' is, i'm afraid, not right given that Paul was writing 20 years after Jesus' death to communities already existing. There are 4 conflicting accounts, but, as any fule no, Matthew, Luke and Mark are also very similar - unsurprisingly so (being drawn from the same sources!). John is another thing altogether, and there are literal libraries written on it. They are the work of many authors and reflect the communities for which they were written - at least part of which, the vast majority of scholars (both Christian and non-Christian agree) were drawn from oral testimony. Taken as a whole, i agree their testimony is definitely of a 'radical preacher crucified', but, I'd suggest, this raises more questions than answers - especially, what made him so radical? There's probably at least a hundred stories spliced here, and whether you're a believer or not, this is some story which merits more thought than your (dare I say) rather lazy statement here.
@@28johann1 I meant that there's 30 years missing in Jesus's story from age 1 to age 33. It is suspicious that no Christians I've ever encountered have been curious as to what happened to Jesus during this time in his life?
@@rozzgrey801 I don't think there's much debate on this to be fair. Historically, this was a 'working-class' person who would have gone unnoticed, and then, later, theologically, his followers would claim that it's precisely because he was unknown and obscure that make his/their claims more plausible than if he'd been someone 'famous'.
Can I recommend the videos of Gary Habermas?
if you do the research you will change your mind., not just the liberal stuff either.
Oh, john, you got the woooo. Great!
Josephus was a jewish slave from the Flavius family. He himself came from an interesting family too. After he was 'freed' he became part of the family. It's an interesting puzzle.
You might come to the conclusion the bible is a political book filled with astrological and gnostic knowledge.
If you dive a bit deeper you'll find the lines of these people/families end up in high places.
it's an interesting and confrontational journey
Aldous was a friend of my grandfather's at balliol.
This woman is totally wrong about Paul the apostle. Paul did not allow women to be in a superior position to the men. He laid the foundation of the church outside of Jerusalem. Paul's Church among the Gentiles is the one that endured and it remains predominate in the world today. This woman exhibits one of the apostacies which are so prevalent in the Church today.
0h dear. Who was 'superior' to whom in the first century church? There were a variety of ministries depending on where you were, with many senior positions (eg as heads of ' house churches') held by women. Paul (and others) may have laid the foundations, but this wasn't a 'church' in a modern sense ('embryonic churches' would be better). It's a much later, theological (i would say un-historical) development to equate the first century Christian movement' with the Church today (not sure which you mean, but you sound like a Catholic (in which case deep sympathies, so am I).
Keep in mind that 1 Timothy is considered a forgery and that Tertullian (who is not a Saint) misread 1 Corinthians 14:34f. Joseph Wilson is good here.
KJV is not Catholic and I am not a Catholic. However, in the KJV Paul is very clear on the roles of men and women and, no, women were not allowed positions of authority in the Church. This is all moot since the modern church in all its ministries can be regarded as apostate.@@28johann1
What’s been mostly lost and recently recovered from history was that Jesus first had an unsuccessful career as a performance DJ. The technology just wasn’t ready and instead of vinyl the discs were made of stone.
Did Jesus say fisher of"men" or "people"? I'm not terribly interested in what we're supposed to say now.
Man/men/mankind are often used interchangeably in The Bible.
God made man means God made mankind/human beings.
When referring to an individual man, the Bible often labels them by their name, profession etc... very rarely if ever 'a man came along'.
'A Samaritan came saying...'
'Nicodemus, a Pharisee...'
We don't know, of course - Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic, but the Gospel writers in this passage use, in Greek, the word 'anthropos' (literally - humanity, all people, everyone).
"...at the 3rd day, women come back to find the tomb empty" Being raised Catholic, I always found this puzzling, but now, easily answered - Jesus was not dead! Merely woke after a coma and leveraged himself between the stone door, proceeded to gain his bearing, and rejoined those that he was close to, only to succumb to his injuries, later. Jesus may have been a good man, especially as revealed later in his life, but was nothing more than just another man. After all, all religions and beliefs were brought about by man's fear of the unknown in very, very, very dark times. Where many religions around the world play host to good morals, there is only one religion that need not be on earth because it has recently been written that over 57% of almost 2 billion people want everyone else dead. How could this possibly be good for the vast majority of people who strive for the betterment of the human race ¿`_
First bit is fine but then you go off on some other tangent. I'm persuaded by Geza Vermes' argument that the 'empty tomb' thing is a re-working of Daniel in the lion's den (Dan 6:22) which would have been known to people reading this passage. Anything to do with the Resurrection seems to be take us away from history and into 'faith'. Where religions 'come from', and whether it's 'good' (as you know i suspect!) are other things entirely
Love the fact that the extra behind Helen Bond is knitting (or crocheting, or…I wouldn’t know the difference). Very sensible.
When I was going to school in New Zealand ,from 1969 to 1979 ,there was nothing in the way of religious studies at all ,I'm sure there would have been though in some of the private schools.
We has a 'religion' lesson once a week at my school which was taken by the Headmaster. It became obvious he was an atheist, and we were encouraged to study all religions from a neutral point of view. We discussed the 'miracles' and he had quite reasonable explanations of them. His view was that there was quite likely a person of that era who was in fact a freedom fighter protesting the occupation of the land by the Romans. That's why they had to get rid of him as his following grew larger.
Poor old Cleese has fallen for woo in his old age.
Historians often neglect Jesus’s troubled childhood where his siblings thought he had a big, shiny head, going on and on about being God’s favorite son. He also hated having his birthday on Christmas, which meant his parents just gave him all his presents at once.
Paul did write that only man are to serve in the ministry, and the 12 apostles where men and they where to spread the gospel. And since they were men, it was a natural process of adopting the Roman military hierarchy, at the same time proving point of Christianity that nothing is inherently evil and everything can be used for good. Females had different roles, very important too, but where not part of the male hierarchy, precisely because their hierarchy naturally is much more flat. At the same time the lady omitted the fact that Mother Mary was the leading figure in formation of the middle eastern churches. Could go on.
Other than that, huge fan of the Pythons. Seen their movies multiple times I lost the count. When I was a kid I've seen their shows so many times I could repeat them from memory.
Strange how these historic accounts only occur 60 years after his life. It'll literally be like me writing and attributing things to a random soldier during ww2 when people memories have faded and most if not all first hand accounts have died and gone.
Not really. Some people leave their memories very late in life, even when close to death. Also what she said is that's the first recorded one they have that still exists. It's not like they had backup hard drives or Google to save their work. Not only with this, but with many historical things, it is not to say that stuff was not written down in a book and simply lost, or destroyed.
If you have not heard about them, look at the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in the 1980s. They had been there for 2000 years, and if you see where they were found, it's a total miracle they were even found. This leaves it open to what else is still hidden away to be found or never found.
Sort of, but by your own premise it would be a bit odd for quite a few reputable historians all talking about the same bloke. For me, it's not so much the historical likelihood of Jesus' existence (balance of probabilities, id say highly likely) as to the interpretations of who he was. Why he was turned into a God i find much more interesting
@@28johann1 I am fully behind Jesus's existence, and I do have faith, all be it not conventional, but I do also wonder how much some writings were, for a better word, embellished.
That's the problem with old history; unless you have multiple accounts and from different viewpoints, you can never be 100% sure things happened the way they did, but this is where faith would come into it.
@@mrmrgaming Broadly agree. 'Faith' is another dimension entirely. True at the time of Jesus, as even the Gospel writers' state ('many doubted: Matt 28:17 ') as with now. There is no 'proof'.
Firstly, she literally just explained that Paul was writing about him around only ten years after (Paul is writing in the 40s, Jesus crucifixion was in around 33 although we can’t know for sure). And secondly, it’s actually not strange at all for sources to originate from 60 years after if you understand that for non-Christians, the significance of the events of Jesus’ crucifixion largely only come into focus AFTER the fact… decades later his followers are STILL around, so now it’s more historically significant. Also it’s possible that (and this is my own personal guess here) writing about what occured during Pilate’s term really only happens after Pilate is gone? So it’s a summary after the fact.
You can’t assume people 2000 years ago had the same attitudes to history as we have now, or the same degree of scholarship or the same motives regarding preservation of the historical record as a scholar might have now. And you can’t assume they’re going to know at the time what might become his rivalry significant after the fact.
Why are replies removed is Malcolm Muggeridge in control?
What would this World like if we all followed the Red Letters?
That's the pertinent question.
Very interesting.
"Women had already been pushed down and supressed" says the lady. Obviously she's not terribly acquainted with Saints Felicity, Agatha, Perpetua, Anastasia, etc, etc. The problem with some people is that they are obsessed with power in a wordly sense and so if people don't have power in a wordly sense then they are "suppressed". Neither did Paul ever refer to any women as apostles. The only people referred to in the Bible as apostles are the twelve apointed by Jesus, the successor to Judas Iscariot and Paul.
You're right in the first half of your piece and wrong in the second. She's right that women were progressively marginalised, and right again that this was a later development - early ministry (and there were many forms of course) clearly involved women. Sadly (in my view), during the late/apostolic/early medieval age ministry did become also about power, and became male-dominated, and this practice of seeing 'apostles' as exclusively male coloured Catholic thinking for centuries.
Life of Brian to me is a mocking of US. And I tend to agree with it.
How J.C. John Cleese, sits through this spiel is a study of diplomatic double think.
How about the abduction of Brian by aliens?
I have Professor Bond's book about Caiapas. Very informative.
Some religions are obviously anti-science, but the Catholic Church is not intuitively anti-science (many scientists in history have actually been clergymen). I know that Galileo is often quoted as a supreme example of the Church as anti-science (largely kept alive by New Atheism/Aggressive Secularism), but this was a political move by an over-zealous Pope who was more concerned about his/The Church's position in the midst of what is now known as the 100 Years War. Galileo was perceived as weakening this worldly position by questioning the theology of the Church. As crazy as it sounds, sadly humans leading the Church thought that people's redemption was also at stake. I always say that "the Church was founded by Christ, but run by humans", hence the various examples of it moving away from the core message of Christ - peace, love, forgive etc - and instead adopting a more (and indeed contradictory) secular approach to its raison d'etre.
*30 years war
What venue are they in? Why are the nuns playing cards? That place is weird!
Where in Paul's letter does it encourage women as deacons and apostles? I must have missed those verses.
Happy new year
Gb news .... really ?!?!
Mary Magdalena wrote a gospel, her Sister Ruth as well, they wrote to Paul and he to them much later refered when they had passed yet he walked on to build the Churches. Mary Wrote a Gospel, look it up.
Making fun of Christ in the Life of Python! The Pythons have the biggest balls of all time!!!
A talk about scratching the surface.
To think she (or should I say they them) actually believes all this is fact. Good for her (opps again) if it makes her happy but this is far from an objective analysis.
I didn’t hear either of them discussing anything other than evidence based history without making any absolute statements of belief.
Always look on the bright side of life. Should be snuck into the hymnals of churches everywhere. Should definitely be played at all memorial services.
Jesus didn't channel "God" or evil spirits, he said: "your faith has made you well." That means that the power to make you well or unwell is internal and dependent on your mindset and beliefs. Since those items are part of structures that make up your internal psychology i.e. you have the ability to change them, the power to heal is intrinsic to you. Jesus's profoundidity is in the accessibility of his understanding of the worlds function. How reality functions: that is: "the kingdom is neither here nor there it is within you." Changing reality is about changing your mind. The meek will inherit the Earth is another way of saying the realization of values held within will necessarily result in their realization without.
Don't be fooled. Just because Josephus was trying to start a religion by writing about Jesus doesn't mean that he actually existed. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Her desperation for an historical Jesus is pathetic. Cleese's gullibility is very sad making.
Malcolm muggeridge was right
Paul most certainly does not talk about female deacons or Apostles since there were none. If you see female clergy, your group is not a church and has gone completely off the rails.
I wrote something about somebody from about sixty years ago so everybody better believe it or else! I’d hate to be you if you don’t believe it!
The deleted scenes should be put back in and released
Unfortunately, Cleese's attachment to GBN has transformed him into Malcolm Muggeridge.
What I learned from The Life of Brian is that he was crucified because of a Roman’s hilarious speech impediment. If Jesus had an “r,” he would’ve been saved from crucifixion, thus derailing Christianity’s existence.
The issue of the existence of Jesus requires a closer look. Did there exist a person at the time, claiming to be the son of the Jewish God? Possibly, although some suggest that the person in New Testament (whose birth and death are documented in detail, but many years between completely missing) is a composition of accounts of different agitators and rebel leaders. So the existence of a self-proclaimed prophet, as presented in the New Testament is one issue which can be argued. A completely different problem is to claim that that person had supernatural abilities.