And it's not unique to Jesus, it's the same for almost any ancient person of note. Unless a person was born of high status, there's likely no record of them before their "flourishing" (i.e. prominence in whatever field or area they're known for), and even if there is, almost certainly no record of their childhood. Childhood and pre-flourishing events get added to the histories of famous individuals by ancient biographers long after the fact, and they're just narrative tools for building up the person as someone destined for greatness, almost never facts founded in evidence.
And then the dead became grateful to him when they were resurrected so it all is a great circle of life and afterlife! Now please excuse me; I've got to go pray for forgiveness.
In new religious movements, how well do early disciples really know their leader(s)? Seems like the leaders’ personal lives and histories are often pretty opaque.
For those wondering about what the Historical Jesus' pre-ministry life was like, scholar James Tabor earlier this year made a video about this topic Long story short? Tabor hypothesizes that after Joseph's death, Jesus as the eldest son and Joseph's heir became the head of the household, responsible for providing for his mother and his younger brothers and sisters (Jesus was likely the eldest of 9 children of Mary and Joseph) As a stonemason and carpenter, Jesus would have used the trade he learned from Joseph to help build the cities the Romans and King Herod the Great's heirs built throughout Judea. As he did so, he would have also done the equivalent of modern night school, training in his off time to be a Rabbi Which honestly? If that was the origin of the Jesus of the Gospels? Makes the ministry and the story of Jesus as Immanuel, God WITH Us, even more meaningful, at least to me.
That doesn't address the many oral traditions that Mary was the second wife of Joseph and that Jesus would have had older siblings. Something that is supported by his siblings rejecting him as a traveling minister. James the brother of Jesus did not become a disciple until after the death of Jesus, but then quickly was recognized as an authority becoming the Bishop of Jerusalem.
And not much of a ministry at that. The last time I checked the bible, there were 3 pages of the words of Jesus and 65 pages of the words of Paul. It doesn't matter what size of type your bible is printed with, for every 3 Jesus, you will find 65 Paul 😊
@@travis1240isn't he supposed to have ressurected him to say that Jesus didn't kill him on purpose or some such? Still, I think that was written well outside the "gospel" authors time, yeah?
@@lde-m8688 There were several killings - the kid he resurrected fell off a roof, and everyone thought that Jesus pushed him off (because he was such a badass I guess) - that's the one that he resurrected so that the boy could come to Jesus' defense so he wouldn't be blamed for the killing. The one that bumped into him, he just flat killed. This gospel dates to the 2nd century, later than but not all that far from Luke or John. It was rejected primarily for theological reasons, not for being "less true" than the other gospels.
I'm a nerd and a completionist and need a series of prequels detailing Jesus's early life. I also need some alleged authority to insist that the new yarns are canon. I'll then enjoy arguing with other nerds online about this.
Again, this just goes to show that Jesus wasn't important when he was a child. Because, if I knew a child was born a virgin and savior of the world, I would write from Day One.
The book has Jesus studying in India in the Orissa area; while this is an historically important ceremonial area, it didn't come into prominence until nearly a millenium later. In addition, this work appears to be derivative of The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ.
No, because there's no reliable childhood account of any ancient person. No one was making detailed records of children's activities when there was a 25-50% chance they wouldn't see age 10. If someone became important, their biographers would make up stories after the fact prefiguring their destiny--exactly like the "See this 12-year-old Messiah defeat priests and rabbis with facts and logic!" story.
@@digitaljanus Well, it goes to show that Jesus wasn't important when he was a child. Because, if I knew a child was born a virgin and savior of the world, I would write from Day One.
There are some amusing gnostic stories of adolescent creating birds oit of mud or killing/raising people. Which are almost as good as baby JC going to Egypt to learn Enochian and the Key of Solomon magic like Moses did.
I want to say those only really go into a few additional episodes from his childhood, not from his teens or twenties which is what is usually referred to as the "lost years".
I don't think Dan mentions 2000 years. The infancy gospels were written sometime in the 2nd century CE as a response to people wanting to know about Jesus's early life, at least that's the consensus.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot Okay, I thought those were “lost years” since they’re not described in the Bible. Also, you see he did have “2000 years” on the screen.
You mean there isn't any proof that Jesus went to Egypt to be taught about the emerald tablets, or India or China to learn about eastern philosophy? You mean it's most likely that Jesus was just a carpenter during that time?
@@geekdivaherselfmy copy of The New Gospels indicates it's more likely he was a stone mason. Like, a lot of his metaphors apparently use rock or stone while there's very little metaphors in wood. Also stone masons were considered to be semi magical or wise, much like blacksmiths.
It was and still is found easier to actively ignore and leave gaps no one's allowed to question because of "reasons" than trying to squeeze in something of an obvious pons asinorum also over the top unbelievable recitation that eventually doesn't even really fit or tether the separate narratives, hence the weeding out of a load of apocryphs labeled unauthorised canon.
So like, when he was a kid he didn't make bird figures from clay that came to life? I got a buddy who always goes on about the wedding at Cana being Jesus' wedding, cause why would his mom come to him when the wine ran low? Lots of head scratching stuff in that Bible.
Jesus feeds 5,000 people with a little bit of bread and fish, and the apostles are all amazed and awed. A couple weeks later, he does the same thing with fewer people and more bread and fish, and the apostles are still amazed and awed. I feel at that point, you're beyond awe and asking Jesus if he can cater your nephew's bar mitzvah. Scorsese's take on the wedding is better. 😁
By that logic it could just as well as been one of siblings of Jesus. Although I can think of no reason why he would not have been married, that does not mean that he was.
@@brettmajeske3525 wrote " Although I can think of no reason why he would not have been married, that does not mean that he was." Yeah, it could have been a brother. Sure, yeah, that sounds reasonable. I wonder if there is any data on that? Cause it fits the "Jesus as divine" if he wasn't. Like, the early church might have made a point of taking that out of the writings.
@@joestfrancois The are multiple references in the New Testament to Jesus having brothers and sisters, including the book of James who claims to be one of them. So the early church didn't remove such references, although when I was a kid attending a Catholic school the nuns were quite insistent that brother really meant cousin because Mary was a perpetual virgin. Which is a post Biblical belief at best. I believe it only become official Catholic doctrine in the 1960s with the Second Vatican Council.
@@brettmajeske3525 wrote "ment to Jesus having brothers and sisters, including the book of James who claims to be one of them. So the early church didn't remove such references, " I wasn't talking about siblings, I meant whether Jesus was married or not. I remember when my brother got married and we ran out of beer and I had to go on a beer run, but that was sort of different because I was in a group and wasn't driving or handling the money. No, I meant if the early church scrubbed the wife of Jesus stuff? Dan would know, we should ask him. The way my buddy talks, a guy of that time and place would stand out more if he were not married than if he was.
The most likely reason is as they made up these stories they didnt need to make more stories that wouldnt correlate to the prophetic mysticism. As there we no supposedly prophetic descriptions for the messiah for those years, there we no stories made up in the attempt to create the myth.
Canonically his family traveled to Egypt fleeing Herod, not seeking knowledge. They probably would have stayed in Alexandria, a city which was home to a majority of the world's Jews at the time, more than had ever lived in Judea. There is no good reason to think he ever went to India.
I heard you bring up the "everyone knew he was from Nazareth" argument before, but recently I've come across arguments that there actually isn't much evidence for a historical Nazareth either, just some evidence of occupation in the Nazareth basin. Is that a hair too fine to split?
In the gospels he was literally called Jesus “of Nazareth”. Back then (poor) people didn’t have surname: they had a first name and a specifier like “son of …”, their job, a physical trait, or the place they came from. The argument historians make is this: according to tradition the messiah should come from the house of David and be born in Bethlehem. Why did Luke, who wrote the gospels several decades after Jesus death, didn’t just call him “Jesus of Bethlehem” and instead came up with a reason why his family from Nazareth should go to Bethlehem and have him born there? The most likely explanation is that that was already a well established oral tradition originated from people who knew Jesus as Jesus from Nazareth. Looks like Luke felt compelled to explain to skeptics why a guy from Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem. I am not up to date with the archeological evidence for Nazareth, I think it has recently been confirmed, however imo it’s irrelevant. If it was a tiny village somewhere in Galilee there’s no reason to expect mud huts with a thatched roof have left traces in the archeological record. Or, more importantly, that written record of such village if even existed, has been preserved. Lack of evidence is compelling when you would expect to find it, for instance if Nazareth had been described as a large city and no such city had left traces, that would be a problem. But a small village disappearing in the fog of history is rather the norm than the exception. 2:13
@pansepot1490 I know why people say he came from Nazareth, what I don't understand is why people are saying it never existed. If the best evidence we have for a places existence is "one guy has the surname and surnames where where you were from" then that's not great evidence. Do we know of anyone else from history with the "Nazareth" surname? If that's the rule, there should be more? That logic follows right?
@@Theprofessorator Not if there was only ever one person of significance who came form a small hamlet. The majority of place names found in both the Old and New Testament's are unknown today. That doesn't mean they were not actual places, just that their location has not been well preserved. Place names like Jerusalem or Babylon are the exception, not the rule.
Seems like a very fine hair to split. What's the distinction between "some evidence of occupation in the Nazareth basin" and "a historical Nazareth"? If you want to argue it wasn't a historical place at Jesus's birth and youth, wouldn't it still have to have been by the time Matthew and Luke were written? They talk about it as if it were a known, if backwards, place. People are claiming it didn't exist because they want to argue Jesus wasn't real at all, but it doesn't make any sense. Unless there was clear evidence of Nazareth being founded between Jesus's time and the Gospels.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Those who argue there was not a historical Nazareth don't believe there was ever a town called Nazareth, and no historical Jesus either, that it is all made up. If there was a town named Nazareth, it didn't survive until the present day. We don't know of its exact location, although there are ruins around the traditional geography that dates from the right time period. But that is true for most of the smaller towns named in the Biblical text. The consensus among secular scholars is that there was a Rabbi named Jesus, just that many details were exaggerated.
I've never been a mythicist, but when you find 90% of Jesus's life isn't recorded, we have no writings from him (if he was even educated enough to write), no physical evidence and only a handful of writings mostly from people that never claimed to meet him, and stories that include supernatural elements that we would discount if claimed of anyone else, the mythicists can make a fair argument.
The options aren't necessarily "The Gospels are right" and "Jesus is completely made up," of course. If there's not much convincing evidence AGAINST his historicity, but also very poor evidence FOR it, we can just be agnostic on the issue. I, personally, do not know if there was a historical Jesus. I think it is possible there was, but that it's also not improbable that there was not. I just won't concede that because something isn't improbable that it was the case, I see no reason to spot the Christians that one. If he's the most important guy to ever exist, it's kinda weird that his existence can easily be doubted, isn't it?
We (or at least historians) wouldn't discount the existence of historical figures just because the stories include supernatural elements. The document for Jesus is actually really good by the standards of antiquity for people who weren't kings (or maybe writers). There are plenty of Jewish figures from that period that we only know from a couple lines in Josephus. Or look at people like Apollonius of Tyana who we know from a biography written centuries later, which includes all sorts of supernatural events. No scholars seriously doubt he existed. Jesus's existence isn't controversial among scholars, but both many Christians and some atheists invest so much meaning in it that it becomes so.
Joshua grew up in a very devout Jewish Family that were atypical small town for The Life and times Joshua was born in. The family more than likely owned a couple of goats, and then ass for travel... He had his bar mitzvah he attended serviced regularly, he went with his father in order to earn money and I'm sure his mother earned money selling yogurt or whatever. And then one day he was called, got baptized and started his ministry...🤔 I suppose when you think about it there's not much to think about 😅 No wonder if they made stories up about his past 30 years after he died 🤔
Why is 70 AD important. Why not reset our calendar at Jesus birth. Do you know when the Gentile Times Ended. How did the Magi know Jesus was born as King. But the Roman Empire of King Herod and the Jews did not. They were following the Trinity of Sun, Moon, and Star Worship. Look at the Sumerian solar system picture. Jesus is the true light ,The Bright Morning Star! The same star a person puts over a Christmas Tree! Our calendar was reset and counted backwards to have Jerusalem destroyed in 70AD. Jesus shows up at 12 and 30 years old. Why did the Jews think Jesus was almost 50. There is a difference of 20 years. So when did the Gentile Times End. Using bible chronology for 1914 or according to history 1934.
Duh! 'Cause he was artificially matured in his growth tank on board an alien spaceship! Can you imagine what people would say if they saw 6-year old Jesus raising the dead? This is somehow less creepy at 32.
0:30 - Unimportant, unavailable or.. uncomfortable? It seems blatantly obvious that whatever Jesus was doing for the first 30 years of his life didn't mesh very well with the stories of his supposed ministry. So yes, I think this is clearly an intentional omission on the part of his chroniclers. You cannot tell me that a living God-man had nothing to say or do that was worthy of recording.
It's some stories in the a collection of scripts called ( lost books of the Bible) I think that's the title of it, and then some of his Mother her mother was named Annna it's also another one called (the forgotten books of Eden) .... they were some of my first reads a long time ago
Is Jesus being born in Bethlehem completely ahistorical? It’s about a 3 hour walk from one to the other. Although idk what the routes looked like back then so it could have been longer. I don’t find it completely implausible
It is not historically, lukes census sending Joseph to his ancestral home is complete fiction, this would have caused absolute chaos, women didn't need to register at a census anyway, there are no other censuses like this in Roman history. It's B's
It seems a tinge disingenuous to say that only the origin story occurred decades after the mythological Jesus died, as every account of Jesus is recorded decades after the supposed event. There is no documentation during the supposed time of Christ, it is all recorded decades after.
I gotta remember to come back here later to read the "No. Idiot. They talked about Jesus' birth in Matthew." comments.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
And it's not unique to Jesus, it's the same for almost any ancient person of note. Unless a person was born of high status, there's likely no record of them before their "flourishing" (i.e. prominence in whatever field or area they're known for), and even if there is, almost certainly no record of their childhood. Childhood and pre-flourishing events get added to the histories of famous individuals by ancient biographers long after the fact, and they're just narrative tools for building up the person as someone destined for greatness, almost never facts founded in evidence.
John Prine knew all-about "Jesus the missing years."
Right Said Fred reference😂
I'm
Too sexy for my
Shirt
@@geekdivaherself- so sexy it hurts
Had Google that reference. That was a truly god-awful song. Can't believe it was a hit back in the day. 😄
What was he doing? He was being a rebellious teen, of course. "You're not my real dad!"
I never expected that reference! Fair (brass) play, Dan! 👏🏽
Right? Theology+History+Right Said Fred ... Does it get any better?
@jamieburow1629 It's Those Simple Things, however Deeply Dippy! 😆
@@jamieburow1629 I'm too Sexy for this podcast
Dan McClellan. The only biblical scholar too sexy for his shirt 😂 Well, him and Francesca Stavrakapoulou. Nice pop reference Dan.
We don't talk about Jesus' lost years.
How come God didn't know he was God until he was a 30 year old man named Jesus?
He was probably really busy. You know how it is, things get away from you.
This week's podcast from Bart Ehrman is about this, actually, so this is timely.
Tremendous summation! Always on point, prof.
He was following the Grateful Dead.
And then the dead became grateful to him when they were resurrected so it all is a great circle of life and afterlife! Now please excuse me; I've got to go pray for forgiveness.
In new religious movements, how well do early disciples really know their leader(s)? Seems like the leaders’ personal lives and histories are often pretty opaque.
I love to hear smart people talk.
For those wondering about what the Historical Jesus' pre-ministry life was like, scholar James Tabor earlier this year made a video about this topic
Long story short? Tabor hypothesizes that after Joseph's death, Jesus as the eldest son and Joseph's heir became the head of the household, responsible for providing for his mother and his younger brothers and sisters (Jesus was likely the eldest of 9 children of Mary and Joseph)
As a stonemason and carpenter, Jesus would have used the trade he learned from Joseph to help build the cities the Romans and King Herod the Great's heirs built throughout Judea. As he did so, he would have also done the equivalent of modern night school, training in his off time to be a Rabbi
Which honestly? If that was the origin of the Jesus of the Gospels? Makes the ministry and the story of Jesus as Immanuel, God WITH Us, even more meaningful, at least to me.
That doesn't address the many oral traditions that Mary was the second wife of Joseph and that Jesus would have had older siblings. Something that is supported by his siblings rejecting him as a traveling minister. James the brother of Jesus did not become a disciple until after the death of Jesus, but then quickly was recognized as an authority becoming the Bishop of Jerusalem.
And not much of a ministry at that. The last time I checked the bible, there were 3 pages of the words of Jesus and 65 pages of the words of Paul.
It doesn't matter what size of type your bible is printed with, for every 3 Jesus, you will find 65 Paul 😊
So the nativity and three wise men and all that stuff is made up to amplify the divinity?
Yup! The Virgin birth never happened. Shepherds never happen. None of that😢
Still beautiful Christmas story😊
I think it's funny to think of Jesus as an extremely boring, devoutly religious child before he became a respected mentor as an adult.
He kills another child for bumping into him in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
@@travis1240isn't he supposed to have ressurected him to say that Jesus didn't kill him on purpose or some such? Still, I think that was written well outside the "gospel" authors time, yeah?
@@lde-m8688 There were several killings - the kid he resurrected fell off a roof, and everyone thought that Jesus pushed him off (because he was such a badass I guess) - that's the one that he resurrected so that the boy could come to Jesus' defense so he wouldn't be blamed for the killing. The one that bumped into him, he just flat killed. This gospel dates to the 2nd century, later than but not all that far from Luke or John. It was rejected primarily for theological reasons, not for being "less true" than the other gospels.
@@travis1240 gotcha
I'm a nerd and a completionist and need a series of prequels detailing Jesus's early life. I also need some alleged authority to insist that the new yarns are canon. I'll then enjoy arguing with other nerds online about this.
Counterpoint: These stories are told in the Gospel of Biff, Christ's childhood pal. (Also published as Lamb, by Christopher Moore.)
Which is one of my favorite entertainment reads. Thanks for bringing it up (^‿^)
Again, this just goes to show that Jesus wasn't important when he was a child. Because, if I knew a child was born a virgin and savior of the world, I would write from Day One.
The book has Jesus studying in India in the Orissa area; while this is an historically important ceremonial area, it didn't come into prominence until nearly a millenium later. In addition, this work appears to be derivative of The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ.
But I love that story. My Step-Grandmother in Salt Lake had the book my parents inherited.
🤘
Nice Right Said Fred reference. I didn't know that made it across the Atlantic.
It would be interesting to know how Jesus became radicalized. How big a role did John the Baptist play?
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there isn't any child account of the son of god, born to angels, etc (besides him at the temple)?
No, because there's no reliable childhood account of any ancient person. No one was making detailed records of children's activities when there was a 25-50% chance they wouldn't see age 10. If someone became important, their biographers would make up stories after the fact prefiguring their destiny--exactly like the "See this 12-year-old Messiah defeat priests and rabbis with facts and logic!" story.
@@digitaljanus Well, it goes to show that Jesus wasn't important when he was a child. Because, if I knew a child was born a virgin and savior of the world, I would write from Day One.
On the night of his birth the sky was full of light, angelic choirs singing, a star that out shone the sun for almost two years and no one noticed?
...annnnd now I can't get that song out of my head. You're a monster. #RightSaidFred
"Well, I think it all started when I found out I could turn water into wine, then..."
There are some amusing gnostic stories of adolescent creating birds oit of mud or killing/raising people.
Which are almost as good as baby JC going to Egypt to learn Enochian and the Key of Solomon magic like Moses did.
2000 years? Weren’t they writing infancy gospels during the periods of the early church, like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas?
I want to say those only really go into a few additional episodes from his childhood, not from his teens or twenties which is what is usually referred to as the "lost years".
I don't think Dan mentions 2000 years. The infancy gospels were written sometime in the 2nd century CE as a response to people wanting to know about Jesus's early life, at least that's the consensus.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot1:38
@@JuanMPalacio That's Jesus from 12 to 30, not the same period the infancy gospels cover.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot Okay, I thought those were “lost years” since they’re not described in the Bible. Also, you see he did have “2000 years” on the screen.
You mean there isn't any proof that Jesus went to Egypt to be taught about the emerald tablets, or India or China to learn about eastern philosophy? You mean it's most likely that Jesus was just a carpenter during that time?
More of a handyman/builder than a carpenter, but yeah!
@@geekdivaherselfmy copy of The New Gospels indicates it's more likely he was a stone mason. Like, a lot of his metaphors apparently use rock or stone while there's very little metaphors in wood. Also stone masons were considered to be semi magical or wise, much like blacksmiths.
The word often translated as "carpenter" means someone who works with their hands, not necessarily wood.
It was and still is found easier to actively ignore and leave gaps no one's allowed to question because of "reasons" than trying to squeeze in something of an obvious pons asinorum also over the top unbelievable recitation that eventually doesn't even really fit or tether the separate narratives, hence the weeding out of a load of apocryphs labeled unauthorised canon.
Right Said, Dan!
I did not expect to hear Dan say that Jesus was too sexy. I know that's not exactly what he said but it still blindsided me
According to The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus He went to India and debated with The Brahmins etc
So like, when he was a kid he didn't make bird figures from clay that came to life?
I got a buddy who always goes on about the wedding at Cana being Jesus' wedding, cause why would his mom come to him when the wine ran low? Lots of head scratching stuff in that Bible.
Jesus feeds 5,000 people with a little bit of bread and fish, and the apostles are all amazed and awed. A couple weeks later, he does the same thing with fewer people and more bread and fish, and the apostles are still amazed and awed. I feel at that point, you're beyond awe and asking Jesus if he can cater your nephew's bar mitzvah.
Scorsese's take on the wedding is better. 😁
By that logic it could just as well as been one of siblings of Jesus. Although I can think of no reason why he would not have been married, that does not mean that he was.
@@brettmajeske3525 wrote " Although I can think of no reason why he would not have been married, that does not mean that he was."
Yeah, it could have been a brother. Sure, yeah, that sounds reasonable. I wonder if there is any data on that? Cause it fits the "Jesus as divine" if he wasn't. Like, the early church might have made a point of taking that out of the writings.
@@joestfrancois The are multiple references in the New Testament to Jesus having brothers and sisters, including the book of James who claims to be one of them. So the early church didn't remove such references, although when I was a kid attending a Catholic school the nuns were quite insistent that brother really meant cousin because Mary was a perpetual virgin. Which is a post Biblical belief at best. I believe it only become official Catholic doctrine in the 1960s with the Second Vatican Council.
@@brettmajeske3525 wrote "ment to Jesus having brothers and sisters, including the book of James who claims to be one of them. So the early church didn't remove such references, "
I wasn't talking about siblings, I meant whether Jesus was married or not. I remember when my brother got married and we ran out of beer and I had to go on a beer run, but that was sort of different because I was in a group and wasn't driving or handling the money. No, I meant if the early church scrubbed the wife of Jesus stuff? Dan would know, we should ask him.
The way my buddy talks, a guy of that time and place would stand out more if he were not married than if he was.
The most likely reason is as they made up these stories they didnt need to make more stories that wouldnt correlate to the prophetic mysticism. As there we no supposedly prophetic descriptions for the messiah for those years, there we no stories made up in the attempt to create the myth.
Dan, Do you think Jesus ever traveled to Egypt or India in his early years seeking knowledge?
Canonically his family traveled to Egypt fleeing Herod, not seeking knowledge. They probably would have stayed in Alexandria, a city which was home to a majority of the world's Jews at the time, more than had ever lived in Judea. There is no good reason to think he ever went to India.
@@magister343 Probably would have stayed in Alexandria? Maybe they took a family vacation to India.
The author of "Mark" has his Jesus begin his ministry after John the Baptist's arrest (Mk 1:14). The author of "John" suggests otherwise (Jn 1:29).
I heard you bring up the "everyone knew he was from Nazareth" argument before, but recently I've come across arguments that there actually isn't much evidence for a historical Nazareth either, just some evidence of occupation in the Nazareth basin. Is that a hair too fine to split?
In the gospels he was literally called Jesus “of Nazareth”. Back then (poor) people didn’t have surname: they had a first name and a specifier like “son of …”, their job, a physical trait, or the place they came from.
The argument historians make is this: according to tradition the messiah should come from the house of David and be born in Bethlehem. Why did Luke, who wrote the gospels several decades after Jesus death, didn’t just call him “Jesus of Bethlehem” and instead came up with a reason why his family from Nazareth should go to Bethlehem and have him born there?
The most likely explanation is that that was already a well established oral tradition originated from people who knew Jesus as Jesus from Nazareth. Looks like Luke felt compelled to explain to skeptics why a guy from Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem.
I am not up to date with the archeological evidence for Nazareth, I think it has recently been confirmed, however imo it’s irrelevant. If it was a tiny village somewhere in Galilee there’s no reason to expect mud huts with a thatched roof have left traces in the archeological record. Or, more importantly, that written record of such village if even existed, has been preserved.
Lack of evidence is compelling when you would expect to find it, for instance if Nazareth had been described as a large city and no such city had left traces, that would be a problem. But a small village disappearing in the fog of history is rather the norm than the exception.
2:13
@pansepot1490 I know why people say he came from Nazareth, what I don't understand is why people are saying it never existed. If the best evidence we have for a places existence is "one guy has the surname and surnames where where you were from" then that's not great evidence.
Do we know of anyone else from history with the "Nazareth" surname? If that's the rule, there should be more? That logic follows right?
@@Theprofessorator Not if there was only ever one person of significance who came form a small hamlet. The majority of place names found in both the Old and New Testament's are unknown today. That doesn't mean they were not actual places, just that their location has not been well preserved. Place names like Jerusalem or Babylon are the exception, not the rule.
Seems like a very fine hair to split. What's the distinction between "some evidence of occupation in the Nazareth basin" and "a historical Nazareth"?
If you want to argue it wasn't a historical place at Jesus's birth and youth, wouldn't it still have to have been by the time Matthew and Luke were written? They talk about it as if it were a known, if backwards, place.
People are claiming it didn't exist because they want to argue Jesus wasn't real at all, but it doesn't make any sense. Unless there was clear evidence of Nazareth being founded between Jesus's time and the Gospels.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Those who argue there was not a historical Nazareth don't believe there was ever a town called Nazareth, and no historical Jesus either, that it is all made up.
If there was a town named Nazareth, it didn't survive until the present day. We don't know of its exact location, although there are ruins around the traditional geography that dates from the right time period. But that is true for most of the smaller towns named in the Biblical text.
The consensus among secular scholars is that there was a Rabbi named Jesus, just that many details were exaggerated.
I've never been a mythicist, but when you find 90% of Jesus's life isn't recorded, we have no writings from him (if he was even educated enough to write), no physical evidence and only a handful of writings mostly from people that never claimed to meet him, and stories that include supernatural elements that we would discount if claimed of anyone else, the mythicists can make a fair argument.
The options aren't necessarily "The Gospels are right" and "Jesus is completely made up," of course. If there's not much convincing evidence AGAINST his historicity, but also very poor evidence FOR it, we can just be agnostic on the issue. I, personally, do not know if there was a historical Jesus. I think it is possible there was, but that it's also not improbable that there was not. I just won't concede that because something isn't improbable that it was the case, I see no reason to spot the Christians that one. If he's the most important guy to ever exist, it's kinda weird that his existence can easily be doubted, isn't it?
We (or at least historians) wouldn't discount the existence of historical figures just because the stories include supernatural elements. The document for Jesus is actually really good by the standards of antiquity for people who weren't kings (or maybe writers). There are plenty of Jewish figures from that period that we only know from a couple lines in Josephus.
Or look at people like Apollonius of Tyana who we know from a biography written centuries later, which includes all sorts of supernatural events. No scholars seriously doubt he existed.
Jesus's existence isn't controversial among scholars, but both many Christians and some atheists invest so much meaning in it that it becomes so.
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus
Yeah, not everyone needs an origin story. I wish Hollywood would understand that.
Joshua grew up in a very devout Jewish Family that were atypical small town for The Life and times Joshua was born in.
The family more than likely owned a couple of goats, and then ass for travel... He had his bar mitzvah he attended serviced regularly, he went with his father in order to earn money and I'm sure his mother earned money selling yogurt or whatever. And then one day he was called, got baptized and started his ministry...🤔 I suppose when you think about it there's not much to think about 😅 No wonder if they made stories up about his past 30 years after he died 🤔
Why is 70 AD important. Why not reset our calendar at Jesus birth.
Do you know when the Gentile Times Ended. How did the Magi know Jesus was born as King. But the Roman Empire of King Herod and the Jews did not. They were following the Trinity of Sun, Moon, and Star Worship. Look at the Sumerian solar system picture. Jesus is the true light ,The Bright Morning Star! The same star a person puts over a Christmas Tree! Our calendar was reset and counted backwards to have Jerusalem destroyed in 70AD. Jesus shows up at 12 and 30 years old. Why did the Jews think Jesus was almost 50. There is a difference of 20 years. So when did the Gentile Times End. Using bible chronology for 1914 or according to history 1934.
Well, there are the stories where kid Jesus turned his playmates into snakes and such... but those aren't in the official Bible.
The book 'Lamb' by Christopher Moore explains it all.
McClellan saying it like right said Dan! 😄
Duh! 'Cause he was artificially matured in his growth tank on board an alien spaceship!
Can you imagine what people would say if they saw 6-year old Jesus raising the dead? This is somehow less creepy at 32.
This guy basically saying its all made up… if you think it just say that dude, don’t dance around
No way I’m disco dancing
He was hanging out with Nigerians and zulus
Or it’s all made up
0:30 - Unimportant, unavailable or.. uncomfortable?
It seems blatantly obvious that whatever Jesus was doing for the first 30 years of his life didn't mesh very well with the stories of his supposed ministry.
So yes, I think this is clearly an intentional omission on the part of his chroniclers. You cannot tell me that a living God-man had nothing to say or do that was worthy of recording.
It's some stories in the a collection of scripts called ( lost books of the Bible) I think that's the title of it, and then some of his Mother her mother was named Annna it's also another one called (the forgotten books of Eden) .... they were some of my first reads a long time ago
Are you talking about pseudographia and the Gnostic gospels? Or are you talking about something else?
I can't make heads nor tails out of this comment. Please, organize your thoughts and try again.
Can see why you can be so easily manipulated. Takes brains.
First! Thanks, again, Dan!
Is Jesus being born in Bethlehem completely ahistorical? It’s about a 3 hour walk from one to the other. Although idk what the routes looked like back then so it could have been longer. I don’t find it completely implausible
IT is a three hour walk from Jerusalem, it is a 2-3 day journey from the tradition site of Nazareth.
It is not historically, lukes census sending Joseph to his ancestral home is complete fiction, this would have caused absolute chaos, women didn't need to register at a census anyway, there are no other censuses like this in Roman history. It's B's
It seems a tinge disingenuous to say that only the origin story occurred decades after the mythological Jesus died, as every account of Jesus is recorded decades after the supposed event. There is no documentation during the supposed time of Christ, it is all recorded decades after.
Religion will be the downfall of all humanity.