I laughed so hard at the Monty Python bit, now I know what I’m going to watch after this lecture is over 😅😅😅 ! Also these lectures are without any doubt imo among some of the very best things on UA-cam. Graduate level scholarship presented in layperson friendly terms. Thank you, sincerely!
I find it interesting that after Pontius Pilate retired to Italy he never wrote down anything about his experience with Jesus. He never wrote down "Hey let me tell about the time I crucified this Jesus guy...". Why didn't Pilate ever talked about Jesus? Maybe because the trial of Jesus wasn't a big deal? Little did Pilate know that it would become the most famous trial in history.
It could have been that Jesus had really been executed without any trial. Even IF the passion narrative is somewhat factual though, most writings from ancient times aren't around anymore. It's almost unheard of for people to find authentic ancient manuscritps of any sort. The writings that do come down to us have only persisted because people thought they were important enough to copy and recopy (all by hand) for centuries. It's not like today where a single tweet can be digitally recopied and shared in seconds and be seen by millions.
Even in Denmark you understand that " fantastic" means the stuff of fantasy? Sadly the poor kinderlander do not- they just pick any word at random, regardless of what it actually means. There is no admissible *evidence* that Pilate ever met whatever Joshua/jesus was calling himself at the time, nor that he was crucified nor that he even existed, but if you are going to believe any old complete nonsense or impossibility why let a little thing like evidence get in your way? those that require*evidence* doubt.
Since the bodies of many (most?) people who were crucified were left for the crows to eat as a post - mortum continuation of their punishment it actually was merciful of Pilate to hasten the death of Jesus in order to allow a prompt burial. It makes a curious contrast to the abusive way he permitted the soldiers to behave, and perhaps the implication is that he acted out of respect for the official standing of Joseph of Arimathea.
Who told you that"he bodies of many (most?) people who were crucified were left for the crows to eat", and why do you believe them? It's logical enough since those crucified may have been left there as with ardeners' moles, hung up to discourage others, and I suppose there were better things for the crucifiers to do than hang about waiting for whoever to suffocate to death although than cannot have taken more than a minute st ost, so the jesussy account cannot be any more than fiction, which it clearly is, although whoever wrote it clearly understood a good about the dreaming mechanism of men. If you cannot breathe you cannot speak. Tied or nailed whoever would have been dead within a minute so all the things jesus is supposed to have said he could not have said. If it *cannot* be true it *is* not true , for example accounts of anyone standing on his own shoulders simply *cannot* be true, but the jesussy(the story of jesus) does not purport to be a blow by blow account of anything and it may well be work of objective art the makers of which were plainly not concerned with niceties of how longit takes to die from suffocation, and by the same tokenthe resurrection tsle can only be fiction; if it *cannot*be true it *is* not true and ay way the teaching of in order that something new may be born the old must die is not referring to the body which starts to decompose s soon as the heart stops beating according to the beeb documentary on de.composition which can be found on yt. By jewish custom the body must be buried before sunset and I'm not sure how practical it is to take a body(deadweight) down from a (how big?) cross would have taken a minimum of not to sure how many big strong chaps, so there is the weight of the body plus the weight of the cross, and one wonders if the romans kept the odd cross in reserve just in case, or were they made to order? The thing to remember is that is a *story* (a drama), not a documentary or blow by blow account. There is quite a good little book (very respectful of those that like to imgine they are Christians) caled was jesus a pagan god which a sort of close textual analysis of the canoniical gosels which highlights their internal and external inconsistecis- one having jesus in two places at once, but forget that, the jruusy works fine as art; it is a very compelling story which is clearly largely allegorical
I enjoy your lectures... injecting a little humour as any good teacher would do makes your class more enjoyable...I did know of the multitude of the Herod's... I'm thinking George Foreman may have ripped off the multi Herod's when he named all his sons "George Foreman".. Cheers from Mexico
That's a Step Down from recorded history: Titus and Vespasian WERE inducted as Scottish Rite Free Masons there. Their first Mission (to the Holy Land) was over the matter of an Unpaid Bill.... 🤪
who told you that"pontuis pilate was born near the antonine wall in scotland his father was a roman soldier there", and why do you believe them?the same guy that sold you the magic beans and told you that jesus christ could stand on his own shoulders and or was dead but came back to life and turned in to a wombat(sctually it was a Lancaster bomber)?
Quite right fcuk what words actually*mean* just chuck em in anyway. ok it's a figure of speech despite they fact that descriptions cannot do or repeat anything.
Jesus was the Samaritan Prophet that Pilate attacked on the holy Samaritan mountain. That mountain was also called The Mount of Olives, (The Samaritans, The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature, James Alan Montgomery, p. 136). Jesus was also accused of being a Samaritan. In GJohn, he is accepted as a prophet/teacher by many Samaritans. And the Samaritans always shown in a positive light, Good Samaritan, the only leper that thanked Jesus, etc. Marka, the great Samaritan writer quotes Thomas3 and in effect praises Jesus.
Who *told* you that "Jesus was the Samaritan Prophet that Pilate attacked on the holy Samaritan mountain. That mountain was also called The Mount of Olives, (The Samaritans, " and bla bla bla, and why do you believe them? NB hearsay can be oral or in writing in which contrary to the supposition of some Elsies is *not magic there being no magic in writing or documents onto which for some inexplicable reason the kinderlander(americans) tack 'ation' as they add ation to transport.
I find the gospel account of the trial fairly convincing, given what history tells us of Pilate's political position: appointed to control a notoriously rebellious province, with meagre military support, and having to put up with a theocratic local quasi-government. I can totally imagine him praying, "oh Zeus, don't let them revolt on my watch!" And, him thinking, "If I have to concede to these yokels, how can I embarrass them in return?" Maybe it didn't happen that way, but the politics are believable.
Mikhail Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" has a rather novel retelling of the Trial of Christ. I take his inspiration to be a plausible truth about Pontious Pilate. It suggests that the prosecutor had a complex and subjective reaction to Jesus, but Bulgakov traveled far beyond the scriptures to form his dialog between them. Pilate was moved to something close to devotion before it was all over. Best novel ever written from my purview.
Bulgakov's account appears to be based on the apocryphal Pilate Cycle which usually attempts to exonerate him from responsibility for executing Jesus by emphasizing his role as witness and early disciple of Jesus. Generally speaking The Eastern Churches took a positive view of Pilate and The Western ones a negative.
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years? The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. In this world, the great fertility of atheism can be explained by the fact that there is no main opponent of critics of the Bible - the Church. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist. Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on UA-cam. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
Bravo , Gosh and I flatter my self that I am prolix. Not awfully sure if it is your case that those that subscribe to whatever it was that the hero of what I call the Jesussey(the tale of jesus) propounded are under any burden of prof which they must discharge as to whether or not there ever was such a chap, and it may be that such is the powerful effect of the Jesussey in men down the ages, it clearly works as a candidate for the epithet objective art, . The trouble is that it is not possible (at least for the writer) to discover what exactly were the details of whatever method or thesis he was advancing *if* there ever were such a chap the trouble is that the authors of one or another version of the Jesussey open it to ridicule and dobt by tacking onto it some nonsense about what the call the resurrection of thebero which any child will tell you is impossible, it fall foul of the general proposition that if it*cannot* be true, it *Is*not true, but they may argue it works as art and no-one calls for evidence of an actual Bilbo Baggins, Winnie the Pooh or Odysseus. Not a shadow of doubt that the dialogue between Pilate an Jesus is a specicies of clash of the titans to switch myths midstream. Pilate obviously sees himself as a rational easy -going tolerant sort of cove that really cannot see why there is such a fuss about what appears to him to be a perfectly sensible rational and monumentally different chap, and oh to be a fly on that wall if ever there were one. Are we to suppose that there was some sort of shorthand note made of said dialogue or that jesus was represented by learned counsel? No matter it is a drama that ned not concern itself with internal and external consistency. I wish Linsay Anderson were still with us and could write a screenplay or get a chum to write a screenplay of that encounter which a a gripping and central part of a remarkable drama the prophet meets the bureaucrat, which few would describe as a meeting of minds. Come to think of it the Jesussey is riddled with inconsistences and examples of what took place apparently without witnesses, to say nothing of J rising up to heaven accompanied by two named characters that no-one could seen before; supposedly Elijah and Elisha. Were they wearing name badges or was it a case of a booming voice announcing'Hi there. I'm Elijah and this is Elisha and we will be your flight attendants on this trip' See also young Mary again without witness who we are told told nonody about the following: angel;" Mary this spirit of the lord is going to *come* over you and so on and Mary- who was a literal minded girl, said " jesus christ!" and fainited whereupon angel says " yes that *would* be a good name and went back to the pub.
@@vhawk1951kl This is exactly what we are talking about, the impossibility of verifying the reliability of the books of the New Testament has led humanity to general skepticism. Is it possible to establish what is fiction and what is not in the story of Jesus or the Church of Christ? By what criteria can you determine which part of the story is true and which is not? I think it is impossible to verify what happened 2,000 years ago in Judea, one can simply believe it or not. Those 2,000 years was a period of spreading unbelief and despite the efforts of the defenders of the Christian faith, they were defeated because human efforts tried to prove the truth of Christ's teachings. God will prove the truth of Christ's teaching not through philosophical speculation, the discovery of ancient manuscripts, or any archaeological finds. Not at all. That is not the handwriting of God. We know from the Bible how God works, God is alive and He will live testify to the truth of Christ's teaching. In the first century this is exactly what was going on. Miracles were the chief weapon of Christ's preachers to convince the skeptic of the truth of Christianity. The following fragment is a good example of this: *"And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.* *But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord."* (Acts 13:6-12). We no longer see this in our day because so-called Christians don't have this kind of power; they are all fake. I want to point out that Christianity was the only religion in the world where every follower, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, received the gifts of the Holy Spirit and had the power to perform miracles. No other religion claims this and gives its believers divine power. The rapid spread of Christianity in the first century was due to this very fact. Otherwise, to claim miracles without performing them would have been a vulnerable place to expose Christianity and the Church of Christ could easily have been accused of lying, which would have caused not the spread but the disappearance of the Teachings of Christ. No false religion would dare to claim such a thing without putting itself in jeopardy.
It seems to me that the second line of Josephus's Jesus quote is christian interpolation too, or at least the part of "of such people as accept the truth gladly"
There are Arabic and Syriac translations of the Testimonium that diverge from the Greek and Latin (and the Greek and Latin also diverge) so that if all the divergent elements are taken in as representing something of the original, while the clearly Christian interpolations are removed, we get something like: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks who believed him to be the Christ. Pilate had him condemned to a cross. The tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. So the original probably used the words "accept the truth" without "gladly". Josephus was probably not thinking of theological or religious truth here, but was simply saying that Jesus was a truth-sayer like John before him. More importantly, the Arabic and Syriac translations BY CHRISTIANS indicate that originally the blaming of the Jews wasn't there. Pilate just crucified him without Jewish involvement. IIRC Bart Ehrman in one of his lectures mentioned that some scholars have posited a hypothesis about the Barabbas incident. This incident has a high likelihood of being based on something historical because both Mark and John share it in their Passion narrative, but both writers may have misused ((or in the case of John, abused) it for their own antisemitic goals. The hypothesis goes that Jesus was the one guy we know of who kept calling God "the Father" while referring to himself as "the Son". However, looking at Mark the historical Jesus probably stopped short of claiming himself to be the Son of God (except to his inner circle), so it is possible that "bar Abbas" was a code in the original Jesus movement to refer to their leader. If true, then Pilate probably didn't give the mob an offer to choose between two men. Instead, he probably asked them if he should release Jesus. In response, the crowd chanted Jesus' title in the movement: "We want bar Abbas!" or "Free bar Abbas!" So Pilate crucified him. I mean, what else would he have done?
The josephus scam was debunked years ag it be a religious equivalent of Piltdown man. It is utterly irrelevant whether or not the character portrayed in what I called theJesussey(the tale of jesus) has any counterpart in what is rather fancifully called "real life, similiter the Odssey ; they are allegory.
obviously not a believer, which is fine, but there is plenty of information included that could have been left out as it offered no context to who Pilate was.. like the story of Mary and Joseph traveling in Matthew but i guess you needed to make the little digs against the NT.
He's the Pastor at Community of Christ Toronto, President at Sionito Group of Charities and a Historian at Community of Christ Canada East Mission. Who are you?
Maccabees, also spelled Machabees, (flourished 2nd century bce, Palestine), priestly family of Jews who organized a successful rebellion against the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV and reconsecrated the defiled Temple of Jerusalem.
It's true that Philo doesn't mention Jesus, but why do you think that was because he didn't think he was important? Nearly everything he writes seems very in line with early Christianity to me, so I think he would think Jesus VERY important
Because of the hatred of Jesus Christ the Jews leaders and priests would likely persuade or pay for his silencer just as they paid for Judas Iscariot betrayal. 🛑 Can you possibly imagine there wicked hearts beating when they were informed that Jesus had had risen and the tomb was empty❓ Can you imagine the crying ,suffering and torment that greeted them the moment they passed from the living to the Dead❓ And knowing that this is how they will spend eternity❗ just like Judas Iscariot is damned they will be also unless they realized their mistake❗Then ask Jesus to forgive them of their sins. They are being tormented day and night with no form of comfort with no rest no one to talk to if you have someone to talk to that would be a form of comfort not only that what about all the people that they lead astray. The point I'm trying to make is no one goes to heaven unless you get on your knees and ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is your lord and Savior. The Bible says one day everybody in heaven on the earth and under the earth will get on their knees and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord Amen and Amen ❗❗ that means the living and the dead in heaven on the earth or in hell. One more thing Jesus is coming back ❗
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted. . if you wish to add *emphasis* *without* appearing to be an hysterical lunaric ret an*asterisk* either side of the word. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the founder of the - now extinct tradition called christianity was a chap called Jesus but there is not a scintilla of extrinsic evidence to support that perfectly reasonable suppositionbut des it matter much? As a drama or work of art the Jesuussey(tal of jesus works just fine - it is compelling stuf f which does not need an actual jesus to work as allegory, any more than the Odyssey needs an actual Odysseus.
If Philo does not mention Jesus it casts a great doubt over the importance or even the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. There are no non-gospel records of Jesus or any events of his life and death. Josephus was born about the time Jesus supposedly died and had no personal knowledge of any of the events concerning him. He simply repeats tales he has heard. There are actually no contemporary sources for a historical Jesus.
So was he born in Scotland as the inscription implies? was his father a senior diplomat there? Were they resident in Fortingall with the oldest tree Europe still beside the church? Its clikbait saying - who was pilate and sticking to Palestinian / bible stuff - and not talking about who PP was
@@david10101961 It's probable but not certain that he was Jewish (a member of the former Jerusalem Church now in exile). I should add that we do not know what the name of This Evangelist was, nor exactly how he became associated with Matthew The Disciple.
Slight disagreement. The conflict between Christians and Jews comes largely from the Jews insisting that Jesus is burning in a lake of excriment and soil. Even today, this is the admitted Rabbinical opinion on Jesus. It's not just them clambering for Jesus's execution in the bible.
No - because the Kingdom of Judea became a Roman province in 66AD under Nero. The Judas of Galilee revolt happened between 4 to 6 BC The Jacob and Simon revolt happened in 46 CE. Pontius Pilate ruled Judea from 27CE to 37CE under Emperor Tiberius. Joseph Ben Caiaphas was appointed high priest under Pontius Pilate and not afterwards.
Pontius Pilate was a butcher and a pacifier of Judea. It is most unlikely he would have indulged in philosophical discourse with Jesus. For starters what language would they converse in? Pilate almost certainly didn't speak Hebrew and Aramaic, Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Latin. So John is clearly fantasizing. No, Pilate's verdict was swift and brutal. "Does this man claim to be the king of the Jews? Crucify!"
Why descend into political correctness by using “BCE” and “CE”? Switching to the political correct year numbering did not involve changing the year numbering
Lmfao, bro, there is NOTHING politically correct about dividing history into the common era and time before the common era but you can go on with your delusions if you want to though 😂😂
Pantera was a Roman soldier who was Jesus's father, who was 16 when he met 14 year old Mary. So obviously, Jesus was not a Jew. His biggest supporters were Marcacians
POV: you don't know how genetics work (here's a lil hint to help alleviate your ignorance, even if that was true that would still make Jesus Jewish because his mother Mary was Jewish)
I laughed so hard at the Monty Python bit, now I know what I’m going to watch after this lecture is over 😅😅😅 ! Also these lectures are without any doubt imo among some of the very best things on UA-cam. Graduate level scholarship presented in layperson friendly terms. Thank you, sincerely!
Thanks so much for these lectures. They're like nothing else I've been able to find and so absorbing!
Welcome back, John "Anyway" Hamer
You're an amazing teacher. I can't believe you share this freely. Thank you.
Another great lecture by Mr. Hamer, and always appreciate Centre Place sharing this with everyone.
waited for so long and finally it's there
So great to have a new lecture! Thank you so much!
So much time and energy into this research. Thank you so much!!!! ❤
I have missed these lectures.
Me too!
I find it interesting that after Pontius Pilate retired to Italy he never wrote down anything about his experience with Jesus. He never wrote down "Hey let me tell about the time I crucified this Jesus guy...".
Why didn't Pilate ever talked about Jesus? Maybe because the trial of Jesus wasn't a big deal? Little did Pilate know that it would become the most famous trial in history.
Probably if someone had asked him his response would have been, "Which Jesus? I crucified, like, ten of them."
Doubt he even cared.
It could have been that Jesus had really been executed without any trial. Even IF the passion narrative is somewhat factual though, most writings from ancient times aren't around anymore. It's almost unheard of for people to find authentic ancient manuscritps of any sort. The writings that do come down to us have only persisted because people thought they were important enough to copy and recopy (all by hand) for centuries. It's not like today where a single tweet can be digitally recopied and shared in seconds and be seen by millions.
Or he never crucified the Christian Jesus.
or Jesus never existed
Yay! You're back!
this is fantastic. watching from Denmark.
Even in Denmark you understand that " fantastic" means the stuff of fantasy?
Sadly the poor kinderlander do not- they just pick any word at random, regardless of what it actually means. There is no admissible *evidence* that Pilate ever met whatever Joshua/jesus was calling himself at the time, nor that he was crucified nor that he even existed, but if you are going to believe any old complete nonsense or impossibility why let a little thing like evidence get in your way? those that require*evidence* doubt.
Woohoo thanks John and CP!
Since the bodies of many (most?) people who were crucified were left for the crows to eat as a post - mortum continuation of their punishment it actually was merciful of Pilate to hasten the death of Jesus in order to allow a prompt burial.
It makes a curious contrast to the abusive way he permitted the soldiers to behave, and perhaps the implication is that he acted out of respect for the official standing of Joseph of Arimathea.
Who told you that"he bodies of many (most?) people who were crucified were left for the crows to eat", and why do you believe them?
It's logical enough since those crucified may have been left there as with ardeners' moles, hung up to discourage others, and I suppose there were better things for the crucifiers to do than hang about waiting for whoever to suffocate to death although than cannot have taken more than a minute st ost, so the jesussy account cannot be any more than fiction, which it clearly is, although whoever wrote it clearly understood a good about the dreaming mechanism of men. If you cannot breathe you cannot speak. Tied or nailed whoever would have been dead within a minute so all the things jesus is supposed to have said he could not have said. If it *cannot* be true it *is* not true , for example accounts of anyone standing on his own shoulders simply *cannot* be true, but the jesussy(the story of jesus) does not purport to be a blow by blow account of anything and it may well be work of objective art the makers of which were plainly not concerned with niceties of how longit takes to die from suffocation, and by the same tokenthe resurrection tsle can only be fiction; if it *cannot*be true it *is* not true and ay way the teaching of in order that something new may be born the old must die is not referring to the body which starts to decompose s soon as the heart stops beating according to the beeb documentary on de.composition which can be found on yt. By jewish custom the body must be buried before sunset and I'm not sure how practical it is to take a body(deadweight) down from a (how big?) cross would have taken a minimum of not to sure how many big strong chaps, so there is the weight of the body plus the weight of the cross, and one wonders if the romans kept the odd cross in reserve just in case, or were they made to order?
The thing to remember is that is a *story* (a drama), not a documentary or blow by blow account. There is quite a good little book (very respectful of those that like to imgine they are Christians) caled was jesus a pagan god which a sort of close textual analysis of the canoniical gosels which highlights their internal and external inconsistecis- one having jesus in two places at once, but forget that, the jruusy works fine as art; it is a very compelling story which is clearly largely allegorical
Thanks for putting these lectures out. Watching from Claremore/Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Very interesting and well presented, thank you.
I missed you!!!!
It seems there is missing video when the lecture starts.
Great lecture 😊
thank you!
I enjoy your lectures... injecting a little humour as any good teacher would do makes your class more enjoyable...I did know of the multitude of the Herod's... I'm thinking George Foreman may have ripped off the multi Herod's when he named all his sons "George Foreman"..
Cheers from Mexico
Great 👍
Where have you been John?
Super bummed I missed the livestream. Watching now! Thanks for your lectures, John.
Hit that bell icon. I was riding home on my bicycle when I asked my question
There is a myth or rumour pontuis pilate was born near the antonine wall in scotland his father was a roman soldier there
That's a Step Down from recorded history:
Titus and Vespasian WERE inducted as Scottish Rite Free Masons there.
Their first Mission (to the Holy Land) was over the matter of an Unpaid Bill....
🤪
Not possible, unfortunately--Britain wasn't part of the Roman Empire until the 30s-40s CE, a decade after he was made governor.
who told you that"pontuis pilate was born near the antonine wall in scotland his father was a roman soldier there", and why do you believe them?the same guy that sold you the magic beans and told you that jesus christ could stand on his own shoulders and or was dead but came back to life and turned in to a wombat(sctually it was a Lancaster bomber)?
@@vhawk1951klyou ok bud?
History literally repeating itself this very moment.
Quite right fcuk what words actually*mean* just chuck em in anyway. ok it's a figure of speech despite they fact that descriptions cannot do or repeat anything.
Thanks!
Thanks for supporting the channel!
Heck yeah brother
Jesus was the Samaritan Prophet that Pilate attacked on the holy Samaritan mountain. That mountain was also called The Mount of Olives, (The Samaritans, The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature, James Alan Montgomery, p. 136). Jesus was also accused of being a Samaritan. In GJohn, he is accepted as a prophet/teacher by many Samaritans. And the Samaritans always shown in a positive light, Good Samaritan, the only leper that thanked Jesus, etc. Marka, the great Samaritan writer quotes Thomas3 and in effect praises Jesus.
Who *told* you that "Jesus was the Samaritan Prophet that Pilate attacked on the holy Samaritan mountain. That mountain was also called The Mount of Olives, (The Samaritans, " and bla bla bla, and why do you believe them? NB hearsay can be oral or in writing in which contrary to the supposition of some Elsies is *not magic there being no magic in writing or documents onto which for some inexplicable reason the kinderlander(americans) tack 'ation' as they add ation to transport.
32:49 chart of how the first generation of the faith fits into the roman (and local judean) history timeline.
I find the gospel account of the trial fairly convincing, given what history tells us of Pilate's political position: appointed to control a notoriously rebellious province, with meagre military support, and having to put up with a theocratic local quasi-government. I can totally imagine him praying, "oh Zeus, don't let them revolt on my watch!" And, him thinking, "If I have to concede to these yokels, how can I embarrass them in return?" Maybe it didn't happen that way, but the politics are believable.
I see what you mean, the issue l have is the ever escalating hostility with each gospel account - by the time you get to John the man is powerless
Mikhail Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" has a rather novel retelling of the Trial of Christ. I take his inspiration to be a plausible truth about Pontious Pilate. It suggests that the prosecutor had a complex and subjective reaction to Jesus, but Bulgakov traveled far beyond the scriptures to form his dialog between them. Pilate was moved to something close to devotion before it was all over. Best novel ever written from my purview.
Bulgakov's account appears to be based on the apocryphal Pilate Cycle which usually attempts to exonerate him from responsibility for executing Jesus by emphasizing his role as witness and early disciple of Jesus.
Generally speaking The Eastern Churches took a positive view of Pilate and The Western ones a negative.
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years?
The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. In this world, the great fertility of atheism can be explained by the fact that there is no main opponent of critics of the Bible - the Church. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist.
Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on UA-cam. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
Bravo , Gosh and I flatter my self that I am prolix.
Not awfully sure if it is your case that those that subscribe to whatever it was that the hero of what I call the Jesussey(the tale of jesus) propounded are under any burden of prof which they must discharge as to whether or not there ever was such a chap, and it may be that such is the powerful effect of the Jesussey in men down the ages, it clearly works as a candidate for the epithet objective art, .
The trouble is that it is not possible (at least for the writer) to discover what exactly were the details of whatever method or thesis he was advancing *if* there ever were such a chap the trouble is that the authors of one or another version of the Jesussey open it to ridicule and dobt by tacking onto it some nonsense about what the call the resurrection of thebero which any child will tell you is impossible, it fall foul of the general proposition that if it*cannot* be true, it *Is*not true, but they may argue it works as art and no-one calls for evidence of an actual Bilbo Baggins, Winnie the Pooh or Odysseus.
Not a shadow of doubt that the dialogue between Pilate an Jesus is a specicies of clash of the titans to switch myths midstream.
Pilate obviously sees himself as a rational easy -going tolerant sort of cove that really cannot see why there is such a fuss about what appears to him to be a perfectly sensible rational and monumentally different chap, and oh to be a fly on that wall if ever there were one. Are we to suppose that there was some sort of shorthand note made of said dialogue or that jesus was represented by learned counsel? No matter it is a drama that ned not concern itself with internal and external consistency.
I wish Linsay Anderson were still with us and could write a screenplay or get a chum to write a screenplay of that encounter which a a gripping and central part of a remarkable drama the prophet meets the bureaucrat, which few would describe as a meeting of minds.
Come to think of it the Jesussey is riddled with inconsistences and examples of what took place apparently without witnesses, to say nothing of J rising up to heaven accompanied by two named characters that no-one could seen before; supposedly Elijah and Elisha. Were they wearing name badges or was it a case of a booming voice announcing'Hi there. I'm Elijah and this is Elisha and we will be your flight attendants on this trip'
See also young Mary again without witness who we are told told nonody about the following:
angel;" Mary this spirit of the lord is going to *come* over you and so on and Mary- who was a literal minded girl, said " jesus christ!" and fainited whereupon angel says " yes that *would* be a good name and went back to the pub.
@@vhawk1951kl This is exactly what we are talking about, the impossibility of verifying the reliability of the books of the New Testament has led humanity to general skepticism. Is it possible to establish what is fiction and what is not in the story of Jesus or the Church of Christ? By what criteria can you determine which part of the story is true and which is not? I think it is impossible to verify what happened 2,000 years ago in Judea, one can simply believe it or not.
Those 2,000 years was a period of spreading unbelief and despite the efforts of the defenders of the Christian faith, they were defeated because human efforts tried to prove the truth of Christ's teachings.
God will prove the truth of Christ's teaching not through philosophical speculation, the discovery of ancient manuscripts, or any archaeological finds. Not at all. That is not the handwriting of God.
We know from the Bible how God works, God is alive and He will live testify to the truth of Christ's teaching. In the first century this is exactly what was going on. Miracles were the chief weapon of Christ's preachers to convince the skeptic of the truth of Christianity.
The following fragment is a good example of this: *"And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.*
*But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord."* (Acts 13:6-12).
We no longer see this in our day because so-called Christians don't have this kind of power; they are all fake.
I want to point out that Christianity was the only religion in the world where every follower, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, received the gifts of the Holy Spirit and had the power to perform miracles. No other religion claims this and gives its believers divine power.
The rapid spread of Christianity in the first century was due to this very fact. Otherwise, to claim miracles without performing them would have been a vulnerable place to expose Christianity and the Church of Christ could easily have been accused of lying, which would have caused not the spread but the disappearance of the Teachings of Christ. No false religion would dare to claim such a thing without putting itself in jeopardy.
It seems to me that the second line of Josephus's Jesus quote is christian interpolation too, or at least the part of "of such people as accept the truth gladly"
There are Arabic and Syriac translations of the Testimonium that diverge from the Greek and Latin (and the Greek and Latin also diverge) so that if all the divergent elements are taken in as representing something of the original, while the clearly Christian interpolations are removed, we get something like:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks who believed him to be the Christ. Pilate had him condemned to a cross. The tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
So the original probably used the words "accept the truth" without "gladly". Josephus was probably not thinking of theological or religious truth here, but was simply saying that Jesus was a truth-sayer like John before him. More importantly, the Arabic and Syriac translations BY CHRISTIANS indicate that originally the blaming of the Jews wasn't there. Pilate just crucified him without Jewish involvement.
IIRC Bart Ehrman in one of his lectures mentioned that some scholars have posited a hypothesis about the Barabbas incident. This incident has a high likelihood of being based on something historical because both Mark and John share it in their Passion narrative, but both writers may have misused ((or in the case of John, abused) it for their own antisemitic goals.
The hypothesis goes that Jesus was the one guy we know of who kept calling God "the Father" while referring to himself as "the Son". However, looking at Mark the historical Jesus probably stopped short of claiming himself to be the Son of God (except to his inner circle), so it is possible that "bar Abbas" was a code in the original Jesus movement to refer to their leader.
If true, then Pilate probably didn't give the mob an offer to choose between two men. Instead, he probably asked them if he should release Jesus. In response, the crowd chanted Jesus' title in the movement: "We want bar Abbas!" or "Free bar Abbas!"
So Pilate crucified him. I mean, what else would he have done?
I’ve heard historians say the whole Jesus passage is interpolated and that seems likely to me. Great lecture tho
@@andrewsuryali8540 dude the testimonium is entirely fake. Read about Jesus Ben Ananias
The josephus scam was debunked years ag it be a religious equivalent of Piltdown man. It is utterly irrelevant whether or not the character portrayed in what I called theJesussey(the tale of jesus) has any counterpart in what is rather fancifully called "real life, similiter the Odssey ; they are allegory.
@@andrewsuryali8540 Josephus is not reliable. What other documentation do we have from the Roman's about Jesus?
It is inferred that Pontius was still in his 20s when he was appointed procurator
How many years passed between the death of Jesus and Pilates recall to Rome???????
Did pilate wrote a letter to ceaser about jesus
obviously not a believer, which is fine, but there is plenty of information included that could have been left out as it offered no context to who Pilate was.. like the story of Mary and Joseph traveling in Matthew but i guess you needed to make the little digs against the NT.
Exactly.
He's the Pastor at Community of Christ Toronto, President at Sionito Group of Charities and a Historian at Community of Christ Canada East Mission. Who are you?
@@tedtimmis8135 🤣
who are the Maccabe's❓
Maccabees, also spelled Machabees, (flourished 2nd century bce, Palestine), priestly family of Jews who organized a successful rebellion against the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV and reconsecrated the defiled Temple of Jerusalem.
@@Chemicznajayou misspelled Isreal
There is no such place as Palestine
It's true that Philo doesn't mention Jesus, but why do you think that was because he didn't think he was important? Nearly everything he writes seems very in line with early Christianity to me, so I think he would think Jesus VERY important
Because of the hatred of Jesus Christ the Jews leaders and priests would likely persuade or pay for his silencer just as they paid for Judas Iscariot betrayal. 🛑 Can you possibly imagine there wicked hearts beating when they were informed that Jesus had had risen and the tomb was empty❓
Can you imagine the crying ,suffering and torment that greeted them the moment they passed from the living to the Dead❓ And knowing that this is how they will spend eternity❗ just like Judas Iscariot is damned they will be also unless they realized their mistake❗Then ask Jesus to forgive them of their sins. They are being tormented day and night with no form of comfort with no rest no one to talk to if you have someone to talk to that would be a form of comfort not only that what about all the people that they lead astray. The point I'm trying to make is no one goes to heaven unless you get on your knees and ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins and confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is your lord and Savior. The Bible says one day everybody in heaven on the earth and under the earth will get on their knees and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord Amen and Amen ❗❗ that means the living and the dead in heaven on the earth or in hell. One more thing Jesus is coming back ❗
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.
.
if you wish to add *emphasis* *without* appearing to be an hysterical lunaric ret an*asterisk* either side of the word.
It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the founder of the - now extinct tradition called christianity was a chap called Jesus but there is not a scintilla of extrinsic evidence to support that perfectly reasonable suppositionbut des it matter much? As a drama or work of art the Jesuussey(tal of jesus works just fine - it is compelling stuf f which does not need an actual jesus to work as allegory, any more than the Odyssey needs an actual Odysseus.
Is it true Jesus never traveled to Rome?
Were these crucifixions just witch hunts? Like you hate your neigbor and want his land so bring all kinds of complaints to Pontius Pilate.
If Philo does not mention Jesus it casts a great doubt over the importance or even the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. There are no non-gospel records of Jesus or any events of his life and death. Josephus was born about the time Jesus supposedly died and had no personal knowledge of any of the events concerning him. He simply repeats tales he has heard. There are actually no contemporary sources for a historical Jesus.
Jesus exists .
There is far less proof that you exist
@@audreyricci6383 They were not saying "Jesus" they were saying "Hey, Zeus"
Zeus be with you!
So was he born in Scotland as the inscription implies?
was his father a senior diplomat there?
Were they resident in Fortingall with the oldest tree Europe still beside the church?
Its clikbait saying - who was pilate and sticking to Palestinian / bible stuff - and not talking about who PP was
7
Does anyone know whether the apostle Mathew was a gentile or a jew?
Matthew is a Hebrew name so I assume that he was a Jew.
@@david10101961
It's probable but not certain that he was Jewish (a member of the former Jerusalem Church now in exile).
I should add that we do not know what the name of This Evangelist was, nor exactly how he became associated with Matthew The Disciple.
He was a Jewish tax collector. This job was given only to a member of the conquered people. So in Judea, it would have been a Jew.
Levi Mathew was Jewish
You can make an argument the devil
Slight disagreement.
The conflict between Christians and Jews comes largely from the Jews insisting that Jesus is burning in a lake of excriment and soil. Even today, this is the admitted Rabbinical opinion on Jesus. It's not just them clambering for Jesus's execution in the bible.
Did pontius pilate know jesus is god when he crucified him?
Pontius Pilate was not powerful enough to kill a God
Pontius Pilate crucifed Jesus the same way that Abraham Lincoln hunted vampires.
Is it possible that Pilate’s rule took place closer to AD 70?
A church father actually claimed Jesus was 50 years old and alive in 40 ad
No - because the Kingdom of Judea became a Roman province in 66AD under Nero.
The Judas of Galilee revolt happened between 4 to 6 BC
The Jacob and Simon revolt happened in 46 CE.
Pontius Pilate ruled Judea from 27CE to 37CE under Emperor Tiberius.
Joseph Ben Caiaphas was appointed high priest under Pontius Pilate and not afterwards.
We know a lot about Pilate but he was not the person that the bible claims.
Pontius Pilate was a butcher and a pacifier of Judea. It is most unlikely he would have indulged in philosophical discourse with Jesus. For starters what language would they converse in? Pilate almost certainly didn't speak Hebrew and Aramaic, Jesus spoke neither Greek nor Latin. So John is clearly fantasizing. No, Pilate's verdict was swift and brutal. "Does this man claim to be the king of the Jews? Crucify!"
Interesting point about language differences.
How did John supposedly learn about the details of their discussion?
Why descend into political correctness by using “BCE” and “CE”?
Switching to the political correct year numbering did not involve changing the year numbering
Lmfao, bro, there is NOTHING politically correct about dividing history into the common era and time before the common era but you can go on with your delusions if you want to though 😂😂
The year should be what ... 4 billion and something?
12:46 what christian? Then I stop listening...😳
The man who killed the Christian God!
It's a bit unfair to your audience to portray these fictitious stories as history, because they are not.
Source: just trust me bro
You should read more
It’s okay they are actually not a church.
Pantera was a Roman soldier who was Jesus's father, who was 16 when he met 14 year old Mary. So obviously, Jesus was not a Jew. His biggest supporters were Marcacians
POV: you don't know how genetics work
(here's a lil hint to help alleviate your ignorance, even if that was true that would still make Jesus Jewish because his mother Mary was Jewish)