Expert Answers Google's Most Popular Questions About Jesus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 тра 2024
- We've asked Helen Bond FRSE Professor of Christian Origins and New Testament at The University of Edinburgh to answer the most googled questions about Jesus.
Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Lucy Worsely, Mary Beard and more. Watch, listen and read history wherever you are, whenever you want it. Available on all devices: Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video, Android TV, Samsung Smart TV, Roku, Xbox, Chromecast, and iOs & Android.
We're offering a special discount to History Hit for our subscribers, get 50% off your first 3 months with code UA-cam: www.historyhit.com/subscripti...
#historyhit #expertanswers #jesuschrist
00:00 Introduction
00:37 Was Jesus called Jesus?
00:53 Was Jesus born in Bethlehem?
01:44 Was Jesus real? / Archeological evidence of Jesus?
02:42 What records are there of Jesus?
03:38 How popular was Jesus?
04:33 Was Jesus crucified?
05:08 What languages did Jesus speak?
05:53 What clothes did Jesus wear?
08:03 Who were Jesus' parents?
08:29 Did Jesus do miracles?
09:53 Was Jesus born in a barn?
10:36 What ethnicity was Jesus?
10:53 Why did the Romans want to kill Jesus?
12:04 Did Jesus invent Christianity?
13:21 Did Herod try to kill Jesus?
14:37 Did Pontius Pilate exist?
15:41 Did Jesus have disciples?
16:36 Did Jesus marry Mary Magdalene?
18:24 Was Jesus a carpenter?
18:57 Where is Jesus' grave?
20:24 What other religions does Jesus appear in?
20:52 Was Jesus a very naughty boy?
"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
Philosophical comedy gold..
People talking about someone decades after the fact doesn't mean someone existed.. Paul had a so called hallucination .
The Life of Brian is probably more accurate in the actual rise of the cult of Jesus and Christianity than any believer would ever want to contemplate. Comedy gold indeed. It's one of the funniest movies ever made.
@@jdjones4825 Ya but it was 2000 years ago so that's really our evidence that any ancient historical figures existed some historian wrote is down some time, Jesus probably existed his 12 apostles went in pairs in 6 different directions some to India some to Rome some to Ethiopia 40 years after jesus's death the first gosepsl were written by the apostles followers writing down what they'd said so it's not just this one guy paul it's 12, also it would be a bit bizare if they made the whole thing up as a joke said it to people who didn't take kindly to it got martyred and then 2000 years later it's the worlds leading religion
@@smoutube1197we don't know if the deciples scriptures are legitimate and even if they are I think once the paul edits occurred the Christian branch of Judaism was eternally "bastardised" from its original free flowing sentiments..
I was born into a Christian family, but no longer consider myself a member of the faith. I find the historiography of Christianity so fascinating. Always a pleasure to hear Professor Bond speak on the subject.
Really? She's so chock full of utter gibberish I can't cope and I've watch 11seconds and had to stop
There is no one in history better attested: pliny the younger, Suetonius, Josephus, plus about 20 others independently attest Jesus. We know the sermons preached in corinth. from 17 years after the crucifixion. She's just a nut job with a badge mate
This was an absolute delight, thank you professor Bond!
Loving the rational and well-informed debate in the comments where everyone apparently possesses more historical knowledge about biblical times than an actual professor at the University of Edinburgh... Well done you. You really "got" whoever it was you think you're getting.
Don’t disagree with you, but I do wonder if you’re aware that people possessing more knowledge than world experts is the very basis of YT :-)
You do know that there are only so many books on this subject and anybody can read them and have an opinion about them just as valid as this professor. Most are on the internet.
@@paulryan5150 OK, but being a professor is way above the level of "reading all the books". She spends her life attending conferences, reading academic papers from all over the world, doing original research in museums, writing papers, which are then peer reviewed. She'll be up-to-date on all the latest ideas and will be expected to have an informed opinion on them and she'll also be asked to review them. She's probably able to read ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. She's been doing this for decades. She might even have to do some teaching!
If you're not an academic, you don't have access to this world.
I wish this was more in-depth and she presented the actual evidence for the claims she makes. You could do an entire hour long video on the evidence that Jesus dressed like a Roman and had short hair. I'd be interested in that.
@@FleurPillager Helen has a lot of content on UA-cam and has written a lot of books
Notably, there are scant documents that date back centuries that support the claims made about the majority of historical figures from that era. She is not claiming that he is divinely born, as Alexander the Great was supposedly born to Zeus; rather, she is stating that the evidence for his existence is consistent with accepted historical accounts.
It depends who you mean, Julius Caesar and Alexander the great are super-well attested, i.e numerous historians, in Caesar´s case things he himself wrote, there are also several coins and inscriptions.
We wouldn´t expect that for Jesus, as if he existed he was a relatively minor thinker. The thing is Jesus is in a different reference class, i.e he is a divine being and most divine beings are not based on real people.That means we need exceptionally good evidence to be sure that Jesus was a real person.
@@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I publicly declare that you’re a divine being.
Now we need exceptionally good evidence to be sure you’re a real person.
There are no historical accounts. A couple of guys a generation or two afterwards who claim to be his inheritors of authority are hardly unbiased sources
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn I completely disagree. There is enough in the New Testament that are not fanciful stories of miracles etc to believe these are actual people.
As mentioned, the best evidence is the crucifixion in that it would make no sense to make up a religion on that basis.
There is plenty of other very good circumstantial reasons to mean the default is that he was real. Whether we know a single thing about him other than that he was crucified is another matter entirely.
Sadly Atheist with Argue over anything that claims Christ Was actually a Real Person. Making her fair game.
"He was very unpopular with a group of people in Jerusalem..." - The diplomat's answer.
that shows she is not fit for the job.
@@MrCopyrat It's lucky you are not in charge of a university!
Just wanted to remind all the smug armchair experts in the comments here that most historians think Jesus was real. If he was the son of God is another matter entirely. The evidence for Jesus is better than most historical figures who's existence no one denies.
As an atheist, I despair at the levels some people go to to assert he didn't exist. It is pure wishful thinking.
If you use Occam's razor, it is far far more likely that a ten-a-penny preacher was crucified and then his supporters spun the story in a way that resonated with people, than the idea that a group of people purposely invented a logically inconsistent story based around a guy being crucified. It literally makes no sense.
I'd like to remind you that history is not a political numbers game, and everything not written AT THE TIME is not valid evidence of anything, but gossip and spin.
I deny his existence
😊 pop pop
@@87tinman then he will deny you. Repent brother, do you really think you’re perfect?
Absolutely mental seeing Prof bond on UA-cam when I last saw her in the late 90s when a mate shared a flat with her friend 😂
Was she wild back then?
Was she assuming crap then too?
Was she guessing at the life story of fictional characters then too?
@@dh7314 Do you think other historical figures are fictional too? Dido? Henry the 8th?
It's worth pointing out that most historical figures from that period are based on very few sources dating centuries after their death. She's not saying he's the son of God, like how Alexander the great was considered the son of Zeus, just that the evidence that he existed stands up to standard historical scrutiny
He existed just as much as the other thousands of guys named jesus existed. Throw in a bunch of writers and storytellers (with various agendas) and you've got entertaining fairy tales at the very least.
@@LP-jn4tw Throw in a few messianic expectations and you have a rock and roll band.
No, actually, they're not. But for some strange reason, we give Jesus a pass on actual evidence.
@@steveofthewildnorth7493no, actually, we don’t. Fortunately most people aren’t ideologically obsessed atheists who want to contort history to suit their own purposes.
@@steveofthewildnorth7493 Xtian apologists do but critical biblical scholars who do scholarship based on evidence do think a traveling apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Jesus was around at the time and had a following.
It obviously does not mean Christian teachings themselves are true, just that he was probably a guy who existed. Look up "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?" by Dan McClellan on UA-cam.
Jesus like had “the kind of burial someone who was slightly executed might have.” Lmao
09:55
There might not be any evidence to confirm this as such, but I imagine that if a deep dive was done to see how often the Bible or other records show how often he closed a door when leaving a room, we could make a fair assumption as to yes or no.
I have not been a believer since I was 12, but growing up I can safely recall never hearing tell of him closing a door. That would lead me to assume that yes, he was in fact born in a barn had he existed. Which, I'm happy to accept he was a real person.
Why is it that in Spanish culture, people use the first name "Jesús" but we don't do that in the rest of Europe?
Well, there's Joshua in English, Jussi in Finnish, Giosue in Italian, Iosua in Romanian, aaand so on. Not Jesus exactly, but then according to the video, Jesus wasn't named Jesus either 😅
It's because in Spain in the 1500s there arose the last name ''De Jesus'' (which means ''Of Jesus'' in Spanish) This last name became very popular in Spain and so people in Spain got used to seeing ''Jesus'' in people's names. And so by the 1700s some people just started naming boys ''Jesus'' and it became a common name in Spain and other Spanish speaking places.
@@AleksiJoensuu Giosue, Iosua, Jussi, all just mean ''Josepth''. not Jesus. Are you saying that ''Jose'' in Spanish means Jesus too?
@@robiking011 Did you watch this video? If not, see 0:38 - 0:52.
@@AleksiJoensuu What does that have to do with anything? She never says that Giosue, Iosua, Jussi all mean Jesus.
Q: "what languages did Jesus speak?"
A: "Murican"
The way she says the word “questions” is wild
You’re soooo lovely ! Thank you 🙏
While he spoke Aramaic, he probably knew enough Hebrew to participate in reading the Torah, and probably read it aloud
Who?
Do you realize how many times the word "probably" figured into the conclusions you've drawn?
@@pirththee Do you realise it's impossible to talk about anybody without probabilities, let alone somebody 2000 years in the past?
@@andrasszabo1570 Here's a phrase that is helpful in situations like you're describing. "I don't know" It's a quaint little phrase that trumps all probabilities and suppositions..
@@pirththeewhat? Are you saying it’s NOT probably true that Mohammed split the moon in half, Joseph Smith found gold plates and Olifat causes mischief in Micronesia? Well, as the first MusMormOliest, I can say that those things ABSOLUTELY, 100% happened*.
*probably
My mom used to ask me all the time if I was born in a barn?
The first Christians were the first Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah. Mary believed the annunciation so she is considered the first Christian.
I understand the argument that Jesus was not the first Christian, but I am unsure about the assertion that Christianity did not emerge as a separate religion from Judaism until much later, even after Paul. I thought that Paul argued that gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism to be accepted into the Kingdom of God. My understanding is that Paul argued with Peter and James (Jesus' brother) that gentiles did not need to adhere to the Jewish laws about food (and presumably circumcision, but I am less sure about this). If that is the case, then it seems to me that Paul was founding a separate religion from Judaism even if he didn't call it Christianity. Have I misunderstood Paul's writings? I would very much appreciate Prof Bond's clarification. Thank you.
There were many different forms of Christianity at that time. 'Heresy:Jesus Christ and the other Sons of God'by Catherine Nixey is a very good book on the subject.
None of that makes any sense, because Christianity as we understand it, did not exist before the council of nicea 325 CE and the first evidence of AD dating ocurrs in the 6th century.
I can tell you that from a Roman perspective, Christians were seen as a Jewish sect until the reign of Vespasian in 70 AD. This indicates that most Christians at the time looked and acted like other Jews.
Yes and Paul himself persecuted early Christians before his conversion.
Correct me if I am wrong but Pilate had Jesus crucified because the Saducces and Pharisees along with Caiaphas wanted him killed and Jews weren't allowed to do that so they sent Jesus to Pilate to have him tried and crucified. So it wasn't just the Romans responsible for this act but also the Jewish authorities who felt threatened by Jesus's teachings.
That's how the gospels tell it, but they're a biased source. The other sources we have just don't give details about it - Josephus just says there was a preacher called Jesus who got executed. (and had a big following that didn't dissolve after his death.) The general idea that the politically powerful folks in the area didn't want him starting a revolt does make sense, though.
They could have him put to death for blasphemy, ie stoned to death, but as he seemingly avoided that, then they used first Herods and then Pilates fear of insurrection to have him dealt with under civil law rather than religous law. Judea and the whole of the Levant was a powder keg, and Pilate would not want to be seen as the person that allowed the whole thing to go up, so if he deemed Jesus to be an instigator of Jewish Independence ie a messiah, then he would want to suppress that very quickly.....so false witnesses were probably used to convince Pilate that Jesus preached insurrection and independence from Rome......nothing about him being King or his religeous views.
There is no contemporary evidence to suport any of this.
@jeffmartin5419 Josephus was a Jewish historian, and the mainstream Jews considered Jesus a heretic. To claim that the gospels are biased as historical documents, but that counterclaims written by someone with an opposing ideology are not is intellectually dishonest.
@wiretamer5710 the gospels and writings of Paul are contemporary historical documents. Whether or not you believe they are divinely inspired is irrelevant. The fact is they are part of the historical record, and they were written within living memory of the events described.
Josephus also mentions Jesus and his brother James, not just Pilate. You'd think that would be important context. Hopefully not edited out.
Josephus was born decades after Jesus alleged death, Jesus didn't appear in Josephus's first history ,but only in his second history which overlapped dates, Josephus's 2nd history followed the Roman propaganda of the time which Josephus was personally beholden to.
Josephus is a later Greek source widely debunked in actual scholarship. It's generally the bible bashers who tout Josephus about, usually misquoting him and giving him more credit than deserved
@@infozencentre No, Josephus was a Jewish historian that apologists hate since he exposes lots of blunders in Luke-Acts as he had access to actual Roman records since he was close with the Flavians.
@@infozencentre Jospehus was Jewish not Greek and he wasn't debunked. He is widely regarded as non-Christian source on Jesus, though it is agreed his fragment was subject to some inetroplation.
Great video, thank you! I will definitely look for your podcast.
I really don’t understand why this video didn’t perform as well as most of the others, I really enjoyed it!
Me too. But some people nowadays are seem to be very bitter at Christianity to the point they love to deny historicity of Jesus and keep mocking every expert who doesn't agree with them and seem to be trigger at any mention of Jesus. (And there is of course the other group - overly-religious ones who reject any critical academic discourse.) It's so sad how fanatical are both sides.
Just listen to his mother. He was a very naughty boy. (Source: Life of Buaian)
Loved this one. I am a former protestant member that never really believed, but was always fascinated by Jesus. Hearing this kind of perspective is so refreshing and interesting.
It is quite common theology and has been for more than 200 years now.
@andreascj73 what is the point of your comment? I go online and make a positive comment, you don't know anything about me, and your instinct is to condescendly come on to point out something I already know? Just keep your mouth shut buddy, and move on.
@@mike9512 Nothing condescending in my comment. But this is common theological knowledge. It would have been the same if you were surprised by some common medical knowledge and thought it refreshing being a former football coach or something, and you were told by a doctor that it is common knowledge.
Instinct? There is no instinct in replying to a comment, mate.
@@andreascj73 Ask a mate to reread your response. It does legit look like your instinct was to condescend. Your follow-up makes it look even more so.
@@BadgerUKvideo I actually don't care how it appears tbh. Common knowledge among theologians is common knowledge among theologians.
And the dinner in the painting was the Passover Seder!
It’s like you’re looking at the top of the ceiling. Very odd have never seen that ever before.
Fact is, Jesus would have had brown skin, brown eyes. He would look nothing like the popularized depictions of a white man with blue or green eyes and long blond hair!
Throughout history, artists have rendered images of Jesus in their own context. Their are Native American images of Native Jesus, European images of European Jesus, Asian images of Asian Jesus, etc. Prior to the globalization of the 20th century, people lived in a much more insular world. When they heard stories, they would transfer them to their own context. Especially in a world of extremely limited literacy, art was used to tell stories in a way that people would understand.
This is certainly a hot take, and not one that people have been pointing out for my whole life...
Not true, the hellenic Mediterranean wasn't the same gene pool as now. You're looking at today: 2,000 of intermarriage later. Wind the clock back. Do the effort.
@@TheLastAssaultman0351 And yet there are facts. Accuracy. Not emotion. It is well known that white Europeans made depictions of christ look like what they wished he looked like. Obviously, inaccurate for racist reasons. Get real man. Facts are the only thing that is important. I could not care less about your emotions.
'inaccurate for racist reasons', well definitely not in the Middle Ages when art (paintings, statues etc.) depictions of Jesus were made to tell Biblical stories to a local crowd.
It is insane how much things in the world and history have happened based on people's faith in someone of whom we know so little about
Its interesting because the New Testament states Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. However, that crime was punishable by stoning. The crime of crucifixion was reserved for inciting rebellion or insurrection against the Roman state.
The Jews were not allowed to administer capital punishment under the Romans. The gospels say that the Jews incited Pilate and the Romans to crucify him by charging him rebellion against Rome.
Blasphemy was the temple authorities acussation. But he was presented as a rebell against Rome to Pilatos. That Is why pilatos first really doesnt care, and the reason jesus Is mocked as a false king of the jews. A messiah Is both a religious and polítical figure.
Another way you can read this from the eyes of Apostle Paul is that although you are right that he shouldn’t have been hanged on a tree for blasphemy, God purposefully made it so so he can rightfully redeem us from the curse of the law as it is written in Galatians 3:13 -
”Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus”
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says “a hanged man is cursed by God”.
It's a story
You forgot about the thieves crucified near Jesus.
How would she know?
She's Professor of Christian Origins and New Testament at The University of Edinburgh
Pliny the Younger, a Roman Gov. talks about him having believers sing to him"as to God".
Pliny was some time after Jesus died, and what he refers to is the Christians that he was dealing with whilst Governer of Bithynia in 110 AD, and what you refer to is his letter to Trajan and how he was to deal with the Christian community from a judical point of biew. He never actually uses the name Jesus, but rather Christ ( and not identified as a person, and the term was "as to 'a' god" of which the Romans had many and allowed the belief of a huge amount of others. So Pliny can be used regarding the early christian movements spread but nothing about Jesus as a person or him ever existing in reality
very naughty boy
Hey History Hit, great video! But please remind your guests to look into the camera lens not at the monitor please :) gives the impression that the person is looking above the camera
I dunno, I’d prefer someone inexperienced on camera to look past me but talk comfortably than getting unnerved looking down the lens. It takes practice to get good at that.
What’s with the blurring out on the picture?
I was of the understanding that actual togas were more of a formal garment, rather than the everyday garment of Romans.
They certainly were by the early Empire.
One small addition: Jesus is present in a couple of religions, not just Christianity and Islam.
He was one of the 4 prophets in manichaeism, which was a major world religion in the 3rd-7th centuries.
In the druze faith, he is one of the 7 prophets.
In the Bahá'i faith, he is a manifestation of God.
Some Hindis consider him an avatar (an incarnation of a god) or sadhu (a holy person).
Some Buddhists, including the current Dalai Lama, also consider him a budhisatva.
Was Jesus real? Probably.
Was he the resurrected son of a god while also being that god who sacrificed himself to himself to save everyone from what he’d do to them if they didn’t worship him? Probably not
😂😂😂
The most important question left is does Jesus save with the Woolwich?
What kills you when crucified? Is it that you bleed to death? Or do they also put a nail through your forehead, and it was simply decided not to depict that in the Christian iconography?
My understanding is it was usually suffocation.
The longer you're up there the harder it is to support your own weight, eventually you hang by your arms and it becomes hard to breathe. You could also die from dehydration.
I found it interesting the two images she showed had the nails through his hands, when they should be through his wrists. You can't hang by just the skin between your fingers, the nails would eventually rip through.
In Jesus' case if he was only up there a few hours, he probably died from artistic interpretation.
I'm not sure regarding the nail to the forehead, but presuming that the crucification is in the form of the traditional cross.
1.) Hypovolemic shock: Having your radial arteries severed alongside other blood vessels will lead to a gradual loss in blood over time; whether or not it will be sufficient to lead to hypovolemic shock, where the heart no longer is able to adequately perfuse blood throughout your arteries and return them via veins, is unclear and likely varies based on the nail size as well as the location and trauma to the surrounding tissues. What is clear is that your entire body weight resting upon the nail will further damage tissue and help prevent clotting which would further blood loss.
2.) Exposure: being stripped naked, and slowly drained of blood or losing a significant volume of blood, as well as likely being malnourished and exposed to a.) nights and b.) winds would rapidly deplete your body of energy, and all of these factors would decrease the ability of your body to properly thermoregulate. You become hypothermic and your core body temperature gradually decreases until your heart has dysfunctions that leads to death, or you fail to oxygenate your tissues properly and functionally die of suffocation.
3.) Malnutrition and starvation and/or infection & septic shock. Jesus is presumed to have been stabbed by a spear, this injury is categorically what would have killed him, based on what I have been exposed to. Romans typically left the crucified alive, up there, for days on end until the elements take them. So considering the physical trauma, as well as the cyclic heating leading to dehydration and baking during the days and increasing fluid loss (thus worsening hypovolemia) and freezing at nights, leading to greater energy expenditures, your head once again gives out. If you happen to get an infection during this time period, you are severely immunocompromised and it could lead to septic shock, but I would bet money the other issues kill you first.
"There's a very good chance it's a 100 percent true"
Assumption after assumption after assumption after assumption and this is her conclusion.
very good
She nowhere says this. Yes, examinibg Jesus's life is based on assumptions. But there is nothing wrong with making assumptions and trying make the most probable scenario.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 She says this right in the first 25 percent of the video after mentioning Jesus' crucifixion.
2 different sources mention it, so she says in a convoluted way that it must be true.
I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying her logic is ridiculous.
with her logic we can talk in the same way about Zeus or Hercules or Robin Hood
@@VinnieG- It's not the same. Zeus wa snever claim to be human in first place. Robin is character from folklore.
Whats the alternative that 12 guys met up and made up a elaborate scam spent the rest of their life peddling it facing persecution never asking for personal favours and ultimalty getting killed then a christian hunter named paul has a road to damascus moment and helps spread it as the second generation of christians rise writing down what the 12 apolstles said in over 60 differnt gospels in 60 differnt places also risking life and limb under roman persecution to spread their religion
that seems more ridiculous
No, he didn't exist. It was a tale from Egypt that the christians rewrote. Horus was born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, walked on water, delivered a 'sermon on the mount', performed mircles, was executed beside two thieves, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Wrong completely. The Horus Manure has long been debunked to the point anyone repeating might as well say they also believe in UFOs.
For one, here was how Horus was actually Conceived.
"After Osiris' death, Isis gathered up the pieces of his body and brought him back to life long enough to CONCEIVE Horus. According to some versions of the myth, Isis used her magical powers to resurrect Osiris and then COPULATED with him, resulting in the conception of Horus.
In other versions, Isis used a magical spell to create a PHALLUS for Osiris, allowing her to conceive Horus without actual physical contact. This mythological detail highlights the importance of Isis' magical powers and her role as a powerful female deity."
Horus wasn't even born from a Virgin. Isis CLEARLY had to knock up Osiris Reanimated Corpse to guve birth to Horus.
So many crackheads here
ACTS 11:26, probably from the 80s, has followers of The Way first being called "Christians" at Antioch. It may have been intended to have a negative connotation.
There were two Bethlehems at the time the second one is under a motorway
The Romans who kept metuculous records also never recorded a census at that time.
@@lizzieh5284 they did a census as recored in the birth of Jesus stories. Dont forget populations were less in those days and population growth was slower so census was not required as often.
@@lizzieh5284 The Census of Quirinius was a census of the Roman province of Judaea taken in 6 CE, upon its formation, by the governor of Roman Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. This is the one most likely to be the census recorded in the New Testament
@@williamfletcher5760 but in the bible it states that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem for a census. There is no record of this written by the Romans. 'Birth of Jesus stories' - exactly that 'stories'.
@@lizzieh5284 see the reply sowing the roman census
19:58 “the gospel writers of the early Christian’s want to imagine that Jesus…”. Could’ve answered all the questions with that single phrase.
Yes, you could but it would be rather imprecise.
Not that phrase exactly; leave off the apostrophe in “Christians.”
You could have stopped with "Early Christians want to imagine", because that says it all.
@@pirththeeyeah, that says it all! Ancient writers wrote things!!! Why so any more!?!?!
@@JohnD808 "Early Christians want to imagine" as the phrase used not "wrote things". What's with you trying to rewrite the sentence now?
Did he even exist? What about the "silent historians". Historians who lived in the 20s, 30s, and 40s AD and they never mentioned him.
A person who performed amazing miracles - walked on water, calmed the storm, resurrected the dead, and changed one liquid into another (water into wine).
Nobody wrote about him when he was alive, nobody kidnapped him.
Scholars believe there was a Jewish man named Jesus who traveled around in that time period and had apocalyptic teachings but obviously those miracles are not something that can be proven.
That IS the whole point: nothing was written down when he lived. Despite his “miracles”…
@@TheStijg
I find this very bizarre. A person with powerful, god-like skills and abilities was never mentioned. Nobody abducted him to use his skills.
He could resurrect the dead. How incredible is that? He could change one substance into another. That's incredible.
The Roman Empire was very bureaucratic, they wrote about everything worth mentioning and a person with magical abilities was certainly worth noting.
The gospels were written by people who had never seen Jesus in person. Never. They weren't even close to him.
@@oldi184 You didn't listen her - there were many figures of miracle performers. Jesus wasn't so special to outsiders. It was his followers that made mark on history.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518
I think Jesus did not exist.
She often said that there is no good, hard evidence that Jesus Christ was real.
And why the New Testament was written in Greek? Why not in Aramaic?
Re the birth place of Jesus: It could've been in Bethlehem in the Galilee, which is only about 12 kilometres North West of Nazareth.
like it very much, thank you
So the followers of JC waited decades to a hundred years after his death to write an account? How is this a historical record? It’s more like a historian writing about the fables of Atlantis. While Jesus probably lived, the mythology written about him is just that. I was hoping for an objective review of these questions.
Good luck finding objectivity on this subject.
He's mentioned in the Pauline Epistles about 20 yrs after his death. The scholarly consensus is that a traveling apocalyptic preacher named Jesus existed and had a following but obviously the religious stuff and miracle claims are unprovable.
@@preciousmourning8310 Can one cite those that comprise ones scholarly consensus?.
@@pirththee Look up the critical biblical scholar Dan McClellan here on UA-cam, he has a PhD in the Bible and the cognitive science of religion. Especially relevant is his video: "Direct archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus?".
@@preciousmourning8310 That's one source I believe you talked about a consensus which implies more than one..
Philo of Alexandria (who was the 1st Century equivalent of History Hit) wrote extensively about the Jewish peoples. He would have been a contemporary of Jesus. What did he write about him? Nothing. Now that might be explained away. However, if Jesus was drawing huge crowds and as much of a thorn in the authorities side as the bible says - why did he not write about him? For the record, I believe there probably was some obscure end times preacher by the name of Yeshua Ben Yosef (or something similar) roaming around Judea with a small group of followers - but most of his life was the product of later embellishment and exaggeration.
Exactly he was probably a nut leading a small cult preaching against the romans and was executed like all the other people who were doing similar things at the time as the romans saw this as trying to incite rebellion among the Jewish population. His later followers were successful in crafting his story to blame the Jews so they could then be accepted as a religion in the Roman Empire.
Philo never wrote about John the Baptist. the High Priests or Roman Governors of Judea other than Pontius Pilate so that's not much of an argument.
There are many other sources from Roman and Judaic writers with no interest in Christianity and they nevertheless reported the life of Jesus. There's no doubt Jesus is a historical figure in the sense that he was a preacher in Judea, he died on the cross, and this happened during Tiberius's reign.
@Tsumami__
I'm not even a Christian, you genius
Probably many street preachers with that name were roaming around with small bands of followers lol
@@antoniousai1989No. your belief does not make him a historical figure. And religious apologists are not historians.
The Apartment family grave?
Why do you blur the suffering of our Lord?
Always love listening to Helen Bond! If anyone cares to listen to her podcast you with find that there are many scholars over many disciplines that have studied the historicity of the Torah and the Bible and speak knowledgeably on how the books were assembled and what parts are historically supported. Her position that Jesus was a real man referenced not only by the Bible but by other historians of the time period does not mean that she swallows everything in the Bible as historically accurate. It is a text that is telling a story in order to support its teachings, and knowing that, it can be analyzed to separate the historical from the embellished. Did Jesus’s life happen and inspire religion? The answer is clearly YES. Was he the miracle working son of God? That’s up to you and your beliefs. Her beliefs are withheld here as she is speaking about history, not religion.
Ironic that a carpenter ends up nailed to a piece of wood. Imagine him hanging there thinking "I could have done a much better job for half the price"
Tune next week for her answers on Santa Claus, and remember to submit your questions in time for the Tooth Fairy Q&A at the end of the month…
0:45 It´s possible that Jesus was a name he adopted rather than a birth name, as it is a name of religious significance.
It was simply the Greek translation of his name, nothing more, nothing less. It is the same as my name Iain, which derives from the Greek Ioannes, that comes from Hebrew Yohanan (God is gracious) and reason of J being writen I in greek, reason why there are so many deviation of my name.....Ioane, Eion, Ion, Jon, John, Jan, Johannes plus plenty more.
@@iainrendle7989 As in "Yeshua" in Hebrew does have a religious significance, the fact that it means "savior" could be significant and there was a belief that there was an archangel called "yeshua" who was God´s right hand man.
I am not a Christian but i find this interesting 😅
Nothing that this person says is actual, truthful, plausible.
Historical.....
Show me the bones Sasquatch
Get a hobby.
Learn to paint.
Houses
@@drew8305What are you on about?
Same here! His impact on the world is enormous, up there with the likes of Caesar and Alexander the Great.
Did his disciples believe he was God? Probably not.
Would depend on what they ate for dinner the previous day.
According to the gospels, Thomas definitely believed only after he was raised from the dead.
Pontius Pilate wrote about Jesus. There are records of his writing. He was complaining about the chaos Jesus was causing amongst the Jewish leaders of the time. Pilate didn't know what to do with him and stated that in his opinion Jesus hadn't done anything wrong. But we all know the outcome. So YES there is evidence of his existence.
I believe he existed, but I'm sorry someone has spun you a yarn. This doesn't exist.
There letter of Pilate to Tiberius is a copy made centuries after Pilate's dead. It's supposed to be a translation of the original letter that nobody know if it even existed and if it existed, that it was actually from Pilate. So no, there is no hard evidence. It wouldn't be the first forgery by the church, would it? Remember the Constantine Donation?
18:58 I'm surprised that she doesn't mention Jesus's grave at Srinagar in India.
I'm surprised she didn't wear a tinfoil hat
The gospel which talks about it it's a forgery from the XIX century.
The gospel which talks about it it's a forgery from the XIX century.
@@infozencentre Sorry. I don't understand.
@@arturmangolim9385 ? There isn't a gospel that talks about it. It's an Ahmadi myth, isn't it?
If your going to talk about the 2 fake Jesus graves in Jerusalem, why not mention the much more interesting Ahmadi version?
April Fool's Day was the 1st. 🤷♂
No idea what you mean. None is talking here jokes.
All the derogatory comments here are to be expected. Jesus and Christianity are a soft target. Imagine if they tried to do a similar Q&A about the Prophet you-know-who. My god.
Well we turn the other cheek and that's a quality I admire
A soft target? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
yes, the most brutal and controlling, and largest religious denomination in the world is totally “a soft target”. Give me a break. Yall are always oppressing while claiming to be oppressed. This is why the world is quickly becoming done with Christianity.
@@SassyUnicorn86Christians never turn the other cheek. Considering your deity told you to enslave other nations and wipe them out to the last infant “dash the infants against the rocks” - and to be JOYOUS while yall do so….no. Turning the other cheek is not what Christians are about.
Of course they are expected, you've had thousands of years to prove your religion is true and you have nothing, either get some evidence or stop whining when people call you out on your lies. As for a Muslim Q&A, Muslims are not like you. Muslims do not go online, talk shit about their prophet, and then wonder why people don't like them.
Muhammad? there is more proof that he was real than there is of Jesus being a real person. Either way, God isn't real.
Super interesting video
Interesting to see the picture of Jesus with Mohammed. How long before the video gets demonetised?
So many comments on this video exude a high degree of ignorance from the commenters. Jesus is as much a historical character as Spartacus or Alexander the Great. Just because we do not have archaeological evidence of his body (like we don’t have the remains of Alexander or Spartacus) doesn’t mean he didn’t exist. It’s not just the Biblical accounts that tell of him, but also historians and writers that (while not contemporary to Jesus) were contemporary to the times of the early Christian communities-historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. His historical existence can be detached from the religious/supernatural claims of the faithful.
Lol ,🤣as long as your convinced
🏅 gold star for mental gymnastics
yeah, no lulz
Also, don’t forget the evidence in Pompeii. Also, saying their is no evidence of Jesus is like saying theirs no evidence that Caesar lived. We believe Caesar lived because we see the evidence in the record as a result of his life and it’s implications. I love how people want to apply a different standard to Jesus then they do any other historical figures.
Lots of Reddit atheists in these comments
Oh dear. Is it April 1st again?
What is had to do with anything?
I like the video. But I must point out that the excerpts of the Bible in old English and low quality print was a poor design choice.
I taught RE and History and I never taught RE as History.
Can you do a documentary on Santa Claus next? Possibly how he met the future Mrs.?
I think you somewhat missed the point.
I feel her eyeline is odd - it appears she is speaking to someone standing behind the camera rather than into the camera
What a random takeaway
@@cleverusername9369 So much for relevant content.
She might be, I've done a little bit of filming before where I've been interviewed about my work and you talk to the person opposite you rather than direct to the camera.
I agree,its irritating.
I didn’t say the content wasn’t relevant I just found it distracting
i think most theologians can agree that god broke his word on the cross
"Why did the Romans want to kill him?" "This is sort of at the end of his life" - ya don't say...
Now do a video about Mohammed im sure that will happen.
There are lots of videos about Mohammed.
I doubt very serious.Jesus would have gotten a short haircut because of a roman emperor
Right? This woman seems like someone who knows just enough to be wrong. Yes, African slaves in the South all wanted George Washingtons wig makers business card, too.
I doubt anyone in the Levant would have given it a second thought.
Great. Now do the same kind of video on Mohammed please.
The youtube channel “useful charts” has a very interesting video on depictions of Jesus. One of the oldest is a graffiti of Jesus with a donkey head on the cross mocking a Christian. You can see how his look changed when he was depicted as similar gods to introduce him to the romans. He started off being depicted as a Roman, then other Roman gods and eventually similar to the Greek god Zeus, which is where the long hair and bearded look comes from
"ehh it mightttttt go back to recollection.. but maybe they lied to make it sound good, that's my PROFESSIONAL opinion" So the first answer is entirely biased
The question that must be asked why would all the disciples die horrendous deaths for a lie? Look at their life they gained nothing on this earth for their continuance of the belief in Jesus. No gain on this earth and only to die horribly for a lie? I think not!
I wonder if you’d extend that explanation to Mohamed Atta?
Tens of millions of people died in WW2 because they believed a lie. The willingness to die for a cause is not evidence for the validity of that cause.
@@PaulHaigh072 a lot of people have done impulsive suicidal things but the disciples were not impulsive nor suicidal they were horribly killed because they taught the world about Jesus.
People were willing to surrender all their worldly possessions and pleasures because they were inspired by the Buddha, but I doubt he actually conquered a supposed cycle of reincarnation. Most of the New Testament was written decades after Jesus was executed, drawn from oral traditions about Jesus' life that were exaggerated or invented as they spread from person to person. Stories about martyrs grow and change the same way, just like how the Roman emperors barely noticed Christians until Diocletian organized a specifically anti-Christian persecution. The Romans killed people for disrespecting the Emperor and the Roman gods, not for being Christian, and there were many groups besides Christians who the Romans went after.
@@edblough4134 So were the followers of every religion. This doesn't make religions true.
You make a false dichotomy between these disciples willing martyrdom and Christianity being a lie.
Could they not have just been mistaken in their faith as, presumably, you believe Jain, Buddhist and Sikh martyrs to have been?
How popular? Not as popular as the Beatles!
Not really. No one cares about beatles
Me at 49s: 👀
Absolute Twaddle 😂
He was ”only” a carpenter so there wouldn’t be any artefacts. Err, I thought he was the son of god, why wouldn’t there be artefacts. Followers would treasure any of his stuff. It would be venerated. And don’t give me that eye-of-a-needle shit, they knew how to make a shekel. So people who are tasked to spread the word don’t mention him for two decades and that’s a “good chance he was real”. And the occupying force who castigated him ultimately to his death didn’t mention him for over a century?
Well, if you believe the countless relics that Catholic and Orthodox venerate, then there is archaeological evidence of him.
Even if we assume that he only got popular after death, there's no chance people wouldn't worship every wooden door Jesus made.
@@LeandroCapstick The Escorial in Spain has the largest collection in the world. They have tours. Faith might move mountains but trust me you want to take the bus up that mountain to see it.
@@pirththee Hell will freeze over before faith moves mountains.
How do you know his disciples only mentioned him after 2 decades.....you do realise that they like 98% of the population were illiterate, even most of the priests spoke the Torah from having it drilled in to them rather than actually reading it. Why do you think that the first gospels were writen in Greek, rather than their native tongue?
Have you studied Romes history, or how Europe, the Levant, Asia Minor and North Africa imploded post the fall of Rome and the impact that had economically, educationally, society wise, return of segration and isolation, and tribe/clan politics. How much of what was writen do you think survived over the next 400-900 years, and what did survive how much is actually the original unbastardised versions. How many original copies of Harry Potter book 1 will still exist in 900 years, and what will future people make of it, now put a world cataclysm in the middle, whereby all computers and storage devices died, over that period 90% of us were not educated, electricity was not available, and therefore places to safely store documents correctly did not exist......now how many copies would still exist. That is exactly what the dark ages were, and the impact what documents remained, let alone still remains was the loss of probably 99%+ of all records made.
2:21 indeed, if there was archaeological evidence for Jesus, this would be case closed. I also think it would be case closed if you had better historical evidence, i.e Paul explicitly mentioning Jesus´s ministry. I think it´s worth consulting Richard Carrier for an alternative view to the professor.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 It´s a debate in academia, the majority are historicist but to put it bluntly you don´t even know your own case if you haven´t read the opposition.
I have read Carrier´s work and logically it is very sound. I think the case for historicity has been overstated. I think he shows an interesting new light on Paul´s letters in particular.
@@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn It's not, Carrier is just an internet blogger not an academic and his "cosmic sperm bank" explanation of Romans 1:3 is absurd.
@@tomasrocha6139 yeah, except there are references to God extracting people's seed. That's just a tongue in check way of refererring to It.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 "They are not even in the debate"
Wrong, his book was peer reviewed and meets scholarly standards, he's part of the debate and there are other experts Who are mythicists or undecided on the issue (Bob Price, Carl Ruck, Héctor Avalos, Thomás Brodie etc).
@@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn No, it simply means he's descended from King David.
Beautiful voice, beautiful eyes and a matching jacket = wonderful video.
A naughty child with the powers of God? Sounds like the God to me.
In a modern version of Titus Andronicus starring Anthony Hopkins, God is (by metaphor) depicted by a naughty child at the beginning, wreaking havoc on the world for play. So the idea can't be new.
You should have the Pillow Guy on next to talk about 2020 election.
Lmaoooo nooo
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Genius.
Followers starting to talk about him "within a couple of decades of his death" really isnt good evidence. Why do we drop basic scientific rigor when talking about religion? Its ridiculous.
Because… oh there isn’t good reason 😅. Literally could’ve written contemporaneously or within a year, but no, decades later copying mythology from all the other prophets at the time 😂. Each book getting more elaborate to the point of invented earthquakes and zombies…
Historical research doesn't operate on "scientific rigor". You can test out theories in science because in science there are scientific laws that are always operating. In history, knowledge about the past has to be found out through both material evidence and written literature, that often varies on various points. It's dependent on human memory and what people think is worth writing about, hence in the field of history rigourous searching for material evidence like a person's remains or other forms of testing we could do to test scientific hypotheses isn't possible. Hence, why in the case of an obscure Jewish rabbi who preached in provincial backwaters and was only in Jerusalem for a short time before he was executed, it makes sense that any Greco-Roman historian of note wouldn't feel the need to write about him, or have even known, about him. Christianity grew after Jesus' death and became popular in the literate Greco-Roman world because of Paul's work, whose letters probably date 20-30 years after Jesus' death which is a span of time in which the people who knew Jesus or his followers would still be very much alive. A better question to be put to the test is why basic historical methodology is suspended by non-historians when talking about religion.
Absolutely right. As a Buddhist I dislike Buddhists who talk about us knowing what Buddha said and did, it was 2500 years ago in his case, we just don't know, we only know what we have now. That's what should be applied to Jesus too, and this has been the biggest cause of people getting dead in 2000 years
Our writings about the general Hannibal, the Gracchi brothers or Spartacus are from decades later, do you think that's bad evidence?
@@tomasrocha6139 I’ve no knowledge of the Gracchi brothers tbh. Hannibal has extensive archeological evidence as a leader, especially with wars and contemporaneous evidence of war campaigns. Jesus has none. Whether Hannibal mythology is exaggerated or fabricated isn’t particularly important or relevant, because we have all the supporting evidence of a warlord leader, and his tactics, whoever he was.
You know, I think I figured out why so many people are upset about this video. I think it's because they put a scholar to the task, who, in her research, does not enter the topic with the presupposition that Jesus was, in fact, the incarnation of a deity, and that you, as the researcher, have your eternal salvation on the line specifically when it comes to the belief in said Jesus as their lord and savior, which you know, might just maybe, in some maybe small maybe you know, possibly totally irrelevant way bias the researcher so horrendously that you could never have them honestly present this information.
Two questions: did he have a Bris (circumcision): When he was 13, did he have a Bar Mitzvah?
Yes and yes.
@@babyboomerang8595 No - according Bible he had it as infant, not as teenager.
If you believe gospels then he had - but as infant, not at age 13.
@@pendragonsxskywalkers9518 ?! Maybe read the OP again! Carefully!
@@babyboomerang8595 OP asked wheter Jesus had procdeure when he was 13. I answered - yes, he had, but not at 13.
Will they speak about Santa Klaus and Mrs. Klaus next? Jesus may have existed we don't know for sure but if he did he defintiely wasn't the son of god and god doesn't exist. Also in other news beware of Zues's lightening bolts. Jesus was a prophet? Where's the science that people can predict the future. Wait I think I'm having a premonition of the future too nevermind.
You cannot know wheter God exist or not. None can. And she wasn't talking about Jesus as God, but as historical figure. If you agree he might exist, what is your problem? She nowhere tells you to belive he was deity.
An "...expert on Jesus" ???
Yes there are experts on lots of historical figures.
@@422katieleigh The Archbishop of Canterbury? The Pope of Rome?
@@user-xm4ep1rl1j They are religious leaders, not historical experts
Professor of divinity.
@@422katieleigh If you don't know Jesus' religion - you can't know Jesus.
Go back to the beginning and start over.
People on that time, needs a leader because of the Romers indvaders.
And thy chose Jesus many years after, to be the new saviour....exactly with Nikæa in 325 a/c.
This is really hard to look into because it's such a complex topic, but if historians agree there's no archaeological evidence for jesus, does that then mean any relics accepted as real by the Catholic church e.g thorns from the crown, pieces of the true cross, pieces of the spear that pierced his side are unquestionably fake?
Of course they are fake, all the “relics” can be dated to be too late to have come from Jesus’s time. It turns out, a thousand years later, people want to turn a different kind of profit. The historical person still existed regardless of what later people did with the story. I can sell you a piece of Socrates’ beard but that doesn’t negate his existence.
If something is from 1st century and Palestine there is always possibility that something was authethic - but it is impossible to prove it truly came from Jesus.
The only History Hit video I’ve ever disliked
Why?
Lol the amount of assumptions she makes are mind boggling…
ya like man being a women?
Really? Which ones, and why?
She's an academic expert. These are not assumptions.
@@JohnD808 i’ve already posted below another comment explaining
@@aps-pictures9335 Post again in THIS section. Not everyone has time to scroll few hundred comments.
50 years after the fact is well within living memory. There are still WW2 veterans alive who can describe what the sea smelled like on D-Day 80 years ago. Yet you want us to believe that Jesus being born in Nazareth is some later legendary accretion? DRIVEL!
18:58 Isn't it in Japan? It's in Japan.
Clearly a nice lady, lovely hair 👍, did I learn anything?, sadly no.
Wow, that's extremely patronizing.
@@LeandroCapstick You say that, but I am from a distant far off time where it was acceptable to compliment a person, sadly we live in strange times where positive comments are construed as insults, I won’t be changing my ways for anyone though, I’ll keep on saying it as I see it, eventually everything will go full circle and the world will catch back up with me 👍🙂
This video is bad enough to make me unsub forever ✌️
Video is good. You are simply prejudiced.
Jesus said he was the Messiah. So or He was crazy or He was right. His followers were killed in many horrible ways for believing in him. Would they die for a crazy or liar man?
History is littered with examples of people who died for crazy men / liars. How many do you want?
the expert is a very sweet lady