As a father of two daughters, I bet your Dad is so proud to have you debate him even if you don't agree. I prize the times my daughters care enough about something to form strong opinions and I love it even more when they fight for what they believe because it shows they are thinking of things at a deeper level. It's not even about right or wrong. As a father it's just a JOY in my soul that they want a deeper understanding of things. I learned a long time ago that being right is not always important because somethings in life are just impossible to comprehend until you have more life experience to wrap around what you are trying to think of. The best way to gain more and more insight is to live a full life and to always be questioning the meanings behind things. Things that might be very true and obvious to you in your youth CAN but not always become less straightforward as you gain more perspectives to think about things as you get older. It's also true that as you get older you can be more set in your ways and not as able to view things from different angles than from your own experience so younger minds can sometimes see things that older people are blind or to lazy to see. So it's a blessing when we debate from different perspectives and from across different age groups because we expose ourselves to a larger and more beautiful world full of honest thoughts. Always question everything!
I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene….No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. Albert Einstein
I really hope you get a chance to interview people that have different opinions or evidence to point to other than Dr. Ehrman's. I've read several sources that present arguments and historical evidence that flatly and diametrically stand in opposition to many of the concepts Ehrman presents here.
Ehrman is self aggrandiosing in almost all of his comments. He is a typical example of an academic who believes their position in the paradigm of history is bonafide fact. He simply forgets that he wasn't actually there. He's the Christianity equivalent of the antiquities ministry of Egypt.
Johanna really believes guys like Ehrman. She openly states that the reason governments all over the world try to cover up alternative history (like the Flood) is because it proves biblical narratives WRONG. This girl blows my mind. How on Earth she thinks that the governments of the World are helping to protect the narrative of religion, but specifically the Judaeo/Christian religion is completely beyond me. Especially since alternative history leans HARD into the Biblical narrative. And Bart Ehrman is a whole other bag of lies. This guy will write a scientific article saying one thing and then sell a book and get paid thousands of dollars to do a lecture saying the exact opposite. But people like Johanna like him. lol.
An interesting spin-off from this video could be the Dead Sea Scrolls!! The scrolls were retained and some written by the Essenes who played a major role in Jewish history up to the time of Jesus birth. In line with Dr. Ehrman's approach of basing research off what is actually written, we can now use that same basis of what was 'written', but this time we can go right to the source at the time just before Jesus was born. Also, it is believed that Jesus was of the Essene community. I think a detailed and in depth study of the Essenes and Dead Sea Scrolls will pay off in a great epiphany/awakening to many!!
And you continue to ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the fact that the Jesus story and the pagan godman myths are the same story. The problem is that you're letting emotion overpower logic. You'd have no trouble believing that the Dionysus myth came from an earlier godman myth even if everything you claim is true about the Jesus myth was true about it (story told in the context of a definite historical time period, birth, ministry and death pinpointable to an exact year etc.). The problem here is the fact that we're talking about Jesus, who you consider to be your god. It's so important for you to believe that Jesus really existed that the emotional center of your brain simply won't allow you to see the gorilla. It's time for you to be a Vulcan, Jay. It's time for you to get that emotional center under control. It's time for a little intellectual honesty. You don't know the process I have been through to come to these conclusions. I actually began as a believer in early life. Then I became a skeptic in that I wanted to research every religion and philosophy to see which ones had merit. Who is to say that the god-king Dali Lama does not have the same merit as Jesus? For a four to five year period, I went through a stage of inquiry. I read the transcendentalist philosophers. I saw the Dali Lama speak at my university. I listened to hours of lectures by psychologists, philosophers, and Native American mystics. I came to the conclusion that Christianity was by far the superior philosophy and worldview. There is no real contest. Ironically, my true conversion to Christianity did not come until several years after I came to this intellectual conclusion. I have also met many others who have come to the same conclusion when they have opened themselves to honest inquiry. Your problem is that you don't really know as much as you think you do. Assuming that I am ruled by emotions and not logic means that you must know everything about me. It also assumes a kind of dualism that I don't accept. All people are influenced by rational thought and emotion. You cannot separate the two as the Gnostics tried to do. Using your level of skepticism, I would have to doubt the existence of almost every historical figure. When you say that Jesus did not exist, you are relying on a popular notion that was in vogue about 100 years ago for a short time. But the problem was that many of the skeptics went searching for answers and found nothing to prove their conjecture, but everything to prove the traditional Christian view. Some of the greatest Christian theologians of this time period began as skeptics. Skepticism can strengthen the rigor of intellectual inquiry, but it cannot be simply blind dismissal of all evidence. If I were not willing to be skeptical, I would not even be participating in this discussion. I will consider each idea that casts doubt on my faith, however, you haven't presented me with anything that I have not encoutntered before. I just got done with a research project called in which I debunk most of what you are throwing at me. www.forerunner.com/realjesus/part1.html Most of what you are telling me is found in the literature of the neo-Gnostic movement which has gained some ground in the past 20 years. The difference is that most of these people don't doubt Jesus existed. That is the wrong tack to take. The idea that Jesus did not exist is non-existent in history up until the age of rationalism -- and it has largely disappeared because most have found it rational to suppose Christ existed. The few crackpots like Timothy Freke who still spout this view rely on poor scholarship, faulty logic and mountains of unsubstantiated conjecture. I am surprised you haven't commented on Freke's "Global Brain" conjecture. Is that a rational belief or an emotional one? While this is an enlightening and enjoyable discussion, I don't want to run over old ground continually. The "Roman Records" debate doesn't need to be revisited, nor does the merit of Christian eyewitnesses debate. Unless AMBomb can provide me with something genuinely new, I don't see the purpose of constant repetition. Here is a new tack: The idea that Jesus was not a real historical person didn't occur to anyone until the 1700s and 1800s. Why? Simply because people closest to the original source eyewitnesses knew that they could not discount His existence. In the first and second centuries, early Christians had to deal with ridicule and abuse from Jewish rabbis and intellectual skepticism from Greek scholars and philosophers. However, none of these skeptics attacked Christianity on the basis of the so-called "Christ-myth" or on the claims that supernatural miracles were impossible. The Jews and pagans of the day readily accepted that Christ lived and performed miracles. The pagans, such as Celsus, argued that His miracles were too commonplace (healing the sick, casting out of demons, providing food and wine) and did not rise to the level of what God could actually accomplish through His omnipotence. The Jews tried to cast doubt that Jesus was the Christ by claiming that He was illegitimate and not born of the prophesied virgin. They claimed that his power came from the devil and not from God. They also started a rumor that the disciples stole His body. This indicates that they knew He was crucified and had to account for the claims by the disciples that He rose from the dead. Note that the skeptics of Jesus' day could have easily harangued Christians into providing proof that Jesus actually existed. But NONE OF THEM did this. Why? Because being so close to the source eyewitnesses, they knew that their testimony was valid. In addition, rationalists cannot make the claim that Christians invented the arguments of the primitive skeptics. The Jewish writings have been preserved independently by Jewish scribes. Regarding pagan writings preserved by Christian scribes, it would have been counter-productive for the early Christian apologists to argue against a skepticism that did not exist. Unless the skeptics of their day readily accepted that Jesus Christ had a historical ministry, they would not have made such arguments. Modernists display the most shameless form of egotism when they assume that almost 2000 years from the events, that they are better judges of what transpired in the first century, than those closest to the source.
While Bart does know his stuff he can be very loose with the truth, especially when it comes to the historicity of Yeshua. I would love to see Johanna interview Richard Carrier for some balance. Make it happen he's awesome!
"I am the Resurrection and the Life, says the Lord. Whoever dies and believes in Me shall live forever, and whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die."
Yes! The vast historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection has been thoroughly discussed in ”The Case for Christ” book by Lee Strobel. I highly recommend to everybody, who needs substance.
Utter nonsense… The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek. Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation. Alma: Virgin or Young Woman? Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example: If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16). In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example: And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12). If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says, The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up. Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says, I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…” Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way: There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
I've watched every video that you've put up on this channel. I'm addicted. Great content & very educational, in an entertaining format. I'm looking forward to much, much more. Also, I'm now going to all the links you've posted of your colleagues youtube channels, so thanks for that too. Off topic, I wasn't sure if I would enjoy Deep Heat, but then I binge watched it & am hoping for a 2nd season. Funny, lighthearted entertainment. Good work. Congrats from Australia :)
The fact that this woman is so interested in all this stuff makes here 10X more attractive than she already very much is. The fact she's not half naked, constantly staring at photographs of herself is massively appealing. Wish there were more young woman like her. WOW.. what a phenomenal human and Woman.
Yes I agree 100%. I see so many young women making videos of them just doing every day stuff like cooking. They do it in very revealing clothing. some guys go crazy over it but I think it just cheapens them. Yes most are very beautiful but it just shows how low they think of themselves. Everything doesn't haft to be sexualized.
Just To Add A little. The Twin founders of Rome Romulus and Remus was said to be born of the Virgin Rhea Silva. Also Ra in Ancient Egypt was said to be born of a virgin mother also. Horus was the son of the Virgin Isis. A good one is the Phrygo-Roman God Attis was born of a Virgin, Nana, on December 25th. Plato also talks about virgin births. I love your videos. Your energy really keeps you interested in the videos you make. Great job
And Jason all that stuff you're posting is nothing more than Satan trying to deceive people to try to sit here and believe in God's just so people like you can sit here and bring up things of other things that are happening that have supposedly happened those have never happened. All saying is trying to do is manipulate people to believe in fake gods.
Your either talking about artificial insemination, or your not talking. Its pretty much impossible to impregnate a woman, who is a virgin, end of story....
This is terrible work and utter nonsense… The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek. Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation. Alma: Virgin or Young Woman? Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example: If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16). In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example: And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12). If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says, The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up. Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says, I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…” Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way: There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
Through much tutelage via Randall “The Great” Carlson, as well as my own curiosity and research, I’ve become quite a bit of a nerd myself.. 😉🤓 Thanks for the content and keep sponging up knowledge and ringing it out for us in that enthusiastic style you have cultivated. 😃
Utter nonsense… The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek. Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation. Alma: Virgin or Young Woman? Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example: If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16). In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example: And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12). If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says, The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up. Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says, I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…” Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way: There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
The Immortality Key is a great book that gives thorough comparisons between Christianity and other religions. Also goes in depth on what Christianity was BEFORE the Romans took control of it.
@@FunnyOldeWorld Resources you will be delighted to discover: I recommend the works of the late *"Glen Kimball",* audio available from a number of interviews by Coast to Coast Radio, Hosted by: George Noory or his sub-hosts, copies of shows found on the ""Regal Beagel Channel"* here on UA-cam. Also: History:New Testament Era, (an entire semester of lectures, that one actually enjoys listening to by Yale University's, now retired, but Platinum, *Professor Emeritus, Dale Martin,* "I highly recommend" this series of clear teaching of the History). I know you will *Enjoy* these, (I may not agree with the interpretations on all points but there's vast real facts in these.) Grab a pad/pen, you will definitely want to make a few notes. The Immaculate Conception is said to refer to Mary's Mother. (Your Guest leaves me a bit - extorting to apply my Higher Mind) However the subject deserves Facts and an Ethical Mature Minded discussion. I encourage you continue your journey and wish you most positive realizations and successes. Best Regards, Beth History Researcher and Sociologist Tennessee, USA PS: I also encourage watching: *"The Last Druid"* (UA-cam Video) ...and for insight and perspective: *"The Century of the Self"* as it gives a Graduate's of Journalism 8nsight to Information and our Influece by Information. Much value for those whom are focused on sharing information and realization 9f the responsibility in doing so. Wisdom content. Journalism my 3rd degree subject. I will share more resources as they come to mind. (Learn the "Universal Law of Attraction", and in its most fundamental sense. It literally defined the subject of the Universe in its Creation = The Law is a fact of Quantum Physics Science in it's having definined it through studies and it is *"Absolute".* It states that: *"All that is manifested into 3D Matter Reality, 1st requires Thought"* ......... the Bang came 2nd Now, consider the "Law 9f Attraction" as it relates to the "Mustard Seed" analogy made by Yeshua/Jesus ... Read or listen to the "Gospel of Thomas" for Jesus instructing "How to Pray to receive". Other Individuals and resources that address this subject: Gregg Braden, Scientist, Researcher, Author, Presentor. These are truly worthy resources for your subject/interest.
Urgh not that old dross???!!! Still??? This has been debunked and debunked and it's so tired. I'm sooooo over it and shocked it's still getting wheeled out!
Jews, Muslims, and christians all agree Jesus was a person alive. China also has people who said they saw a Arab man preaching the same stuff Jesus said. So looks very possible he was here. What he was is debatable.
Take a look at the Hemis monastery in Laddakh. The records of that Vajrayana monastery contains the records of a visitor who highly resembles Jesus. He is also mentioned in a scripture of a sect of yogis called Natha namavali, and it's also said that he visited Jagannath Puri.
_"Re: Mary being a “virgin”."_ The intentional mistranslation of these verses are not in academic dispute. There are abundant scholarly articles about it. The paper trails and sequence of events is well known and understood. The word used in Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 7:14) is "almah" ("young woman having reached puberty"). The Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, is "bethulah" ("virgin"). The Septuagint is a version of the Old Testament prepared in the 3rd century BC by Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew sciptures into Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish community. In translating for the Septuagint, "almah" was translated into Greek as "parthenos" ("virgin"). Thus, Isaiah's prophecy in the original Hebrew states that the Messiah would be conceived by an "almah" ("young woman"), whereas the Greek translation in the Septuagint version of Isaiah refers instead to a "parthenos" ("virgin"). So, the Gospel of Matthew (Luke copied Matthew's account, Mark and John do not assert a virgin birth) attempted to justify Jesus' divine parentage by tailoring the story of Jesus' conception to match the fulfilment of a prophecy that was never actually made. In the entire Christian corpus, the virgin birth is found only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of John (John 1:45) states that Jesus had both father and mother, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth". The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus' full humanity. The Gospel of Mark has no birth story and states that Jesus' mother had no belief in her son as having been created by a supernatural being, as if she had forgotten the angel's visit. None of the Gospels were written by witnesses to Jesus. Only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke is the virgin birth asserted. The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on very slender historical foundations. Both Matthew and Luke are late and anonymous compositions dating from the period AD 80-100. The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus's full humanity, stating that he was "born of a woman" like any other human being and "born under the law" like any Jew. The Gospel of Mark, dating from around AD 70, we read of Jesus saying that "prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house" - Mark 6:4), which suggests that Mark was not aware of any tradition of special circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, and while the author of the gospel of John is confident that Jesus is more than human he makes no reference to a virgin birth to prove his point. John in fact refers twice to Jesus as the "son of Joseph," the first time from the lips of the disciple Philip ("We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth" - John 1:45), the second from the unbelieving Jews ("Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?" - John 6:41).
Michael Heiser is a good place to start - linguistically and historically he is erudite. Hugh Ross is a physicist who wanted to debunk the Bible...and there's a cold case cop guy too. I started my Gnostic research by reading the books not accepted because the Roman Catholic Church is not to be trusted...at all!
your beauty is jaw dropping JJ...and you make this stuff so interesting. I was hooked when I found GH, AJW and RC. You're slowly revitalising my curiosity for this lost story.
I tell you a secret: claims can be checked using google! Put in the names you dropped, read up who Osiris, Isis and Horus were, and be ashamed. Be very ashamed!
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 Christians also may have adapted the iconography of the Egyptian goddess Isis nursing her son Horus and applied it to the Virgin Mary nursing her son Jesus. Some Christians also may have conflated stories about the Egyptian god Osiris with the resurrection of Jesus. Took your advice and used Google
At 9:52 regarding similarities between religions, seems like "the perennial philosophy" is a good explanation. If there is a fundamental truth hidden beyond the veil which underpins our material existence (such as the mystery of human consciousness), it would likely be the kind of thing that is unveiled by spiritually advanced beings again and again across time and location. They don't borrow from each other; they just tap into the same Truth.
Hello, I'm a new subsciber to your channel and your videos are interesting. On your recommendation I watched the BAM video and with all the locations on the points of instability on a line around the planet it occurs to me that maybe they were built to create tectonic stability.
_"...are there any contemporary texts that describe the Jesus story."_ There is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus existed. None of the Gospel authors, or any other writers, witnessed the Bible figure known as Jesus. All four Gospels were written anonymously and all were written after 70 AD. In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, carving, sculpture or monument, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence or official record. Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. The earliest Gospel fragment we have dates from the second century (John 18). More than 80% of New Testament manuscripts date to the 5th century or later.
@@twitherspoon8954 That's because Jesus wasn't a religious figure, that is not what he was sent to Earth for ... He's been USED ...by almost every religious denomination, if only ppl knew, he came from a place where religion isn't even a thing .. there ugo ....
@@twitherspoon8954 Most, if not all contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed by the Roman Empire. If it is indeed not all, some writings are most definitely within the Vatican's library.
@@TivonSanders _"Most, if not all contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed by the Roman Empire."_ LOL, how convenient. So then 400 years later it appears. I would expect that if God was walking around town for thirty years that the locals would have noticed.
@@TivonSanders _"Most, if not all contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed by the Roman Empire."_ How convenient. Yet Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. The earliest Gospel fragment we have dates from the second century (John 18). More than 80% of New Testament manuscripts date to the 5th century or later.
I love your channel and I'm very excited about women who enter into this discourse dominated by men. Two comments: 1) contemporary beliefs around gender, sexuality & orientation are as much about power as they ever were. Yes, the Greeks had their own take on how power dynamics were reflected and expressed in sexual identities & relationships but so do we. 2) "Ancient world" is a broad term for a lot of centuries over a lot of geographies. I really wish folks would specify which civilizations/societies/cultures they are talking about. Thanks for all the videos.
Thanks so much for being brave enough to tackle such a thorny and sometimes divisive subject. Whether one believes or not, it's so important that we can discuss it like mature adults and if not convinced towards one side or the other, then agree to disagree and continue on without getting upset. 👍
Looking forward to this. Also J.J I am so happy for you with the TV thing. Many strings to your bow! Brilliant! I have a hearing issue as well, yet next week... I am being taught by Songwriters who have number 1's from all over the world! Deaf Rules:)
the origin of the word virgin means to be puur,so what it says is "Shri Krishna was born to Devaki the puur" virgin became entangled with no sex only later on. a story becomes a hot mess when you dont know the origins of a word.
I just found your channel and LOVE your presentation. How did you become interested in all this? Maybe you have already shared that? IF so... would you make it available as reference video and suggest it in your notes after every video you make?
I'm not sure which video but Jahanna has mentioned growing up in a religious family, something about her father being a pastor...I could be wrong though
It's my understanding that there was no letter J in Hebrew back then. His name was more likely Yeshua. Read The Knostic Gospels if you haven't already. From the actual writings and they said it was a spiritual resurrection.
_"Read The Knostic Gospels if you haven't already. From the actual writings and they said it was a spiritual resurrection."_ They were written in the 4th century. _"His name was more likely Yeshua."_ How many names did Jesus have? Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the messiah's name will be Emmanuel. Notably, that is not one of the many New Testament names of the Bible figure commonly known as Jesus. What was Jesus' real name? It's a secret. No one knows his name- Revelation 19:12 Jesus- Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31 Jesus Christ- John 1:17 The Son of Man- Matthew 8:20 The Son of the Highest- Luke 1:32 The Son of David- Matthew 9:27 The Son of God- Luke 1:35 The Holy One of God- Mark 1:23-24 The Lord of Our Righteousness- Jeremiah 23:6 Alpha and Omega- Revelation 1:8 The Amen- Revelation 3:14 The Lion of the Tribe of Juda, The Root of David- Revelation 5:5 Faithful and True- Revelation 19:11 King of Kings and Lord of Lords- Revelation 19:16 The Bright and Morning Star (shared with Lucifer, Isaiah 14:12)- Revelation 22:16
@@twitherspoon8954 You really think you know the bible, don't you? LOL That "Jesus" in Revelation 19, is not the real Jesus. Not the one of the gospels at least. In Acts 1, an Angel clearly states that the same Jesus the disciples saw ascending to heaven, "In like manner, will one day return". Returning to earth declaring war on the world, is *not* returning the same way, or "like manner" he left us. He left peaceably, so he'll return peaceably. Daniel 7, where the Ancient of Days was written about, also speaks of "One like the Son of Man" coming back to earth in the "clouds". In the original Hebrew texts, the term "One like the" is *not* written. Therefore, it was added into the KJV and ultimately, other translations of the Bible. that being is The Son of Man, aka Jesus. Daniel writes that he returns peaceably, just as the Angel in Acts 1 says, and collects the earth and all it's kingdoms from the Beast and the Ancient of Days, and all who believe in him will rule forever. There is no mention also of a millennial reign or a Gog and Magog war afterwards, like Revelation states. I think most of Revelation is a forgery, just because of that one inconsistency between scriptures. And to say that the Nag Hammadi scriptures were written in the fourth century, first of all, is incorrect. C14 dating puts the dead sea scrolls between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. But that even in itself still doesn't negate the fact that the dead sea scrolls could have very well been a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. So to present the data of carbon dating to attempt to dispute the validity of the Nag Hammadi scriptures, is a weak move.
Jahannah, you got really good guest, full of knowledge, intellect and a good wit, too. Bring him back! Keep up the good work. Have more of these experts on your channel - it really increases your credentials. You’re ”The Physics Girl” for ancient history. And that’s a good thing.
Utter nonsense… The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek. Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation. Alma: Virgin or Young Woman? Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example: If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16). In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example: And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12). If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says, The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up. Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says, I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…” Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way: There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
@@kickapowwww History is written by the victors of war. The remnants of information are there but have been twisted to suit the victors and the society they represent. No good or bad it is just the learning of the earth. We are not just based on the five senses, we are all light beings who are starting to remember, there is no one truth, your truth is your own, but if we listen to our inner light, the Akashic vibration is where to look.
Imagine a mistranslation of John 4:16 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except THROUGH me." What if THROUGH was mistranslated (probably on purpose) and was instead meant to mean "the same way as me"? That one word's definition changes the entire emphasis of the New Testament from one of supplication to one of self empowerment. Food for thought.
Schaller know that Jesus' true name was Yoshua. The letter J didn't exist until the early 1100's. This leaves us with Yesus which is the Sandscript name for Shiva. Yoshua grew up in Egypt and may have been initiated there. The Dead sea scrolls contained copies of Egyptian temple wall writings. Many these Dead sea scrolls remain untranslated because of there religious controversial subject matter. I have also heard that Yoshua's family traveled through India and even into Tabet. I enjoy learning about these topics.
It's actually "Yeshua" Eng = Joshua. Yeshua in Greek is Lesous, Latin = Lesus & Eng = Jesus. I believe they kept the more Latin name as it stands out against all the other Josh's in the Bible. You're right about the "J" thing. The rest... sounds like the stream of conscientiousness, random word association stuff that one ancient history youtuber goes on about.
wel jesus said it himself youre cross is youre own to bare,i can help you but you have to do the heavy lifting,no man can bare it for you and if they would it just makes you weak. in other words sort youre own shit out because thats youre responsbility.
@@marcvandermeyden8000 It's incorrect to assess any man made argument against a supreme intelligence that created everything. It's likely true that the best conception we can imagine for this entity/intelligence is a man like Jesus Christ and the story is the best we could possibly imagine for. It is unwise to refute it, unless you have something better to offer, but I digress. There's a reason "Occult" gnosis has been hidden and it is a good one. This girl will eventually concede to the consequences of her actions as many before her have learned/acquired. Once she figures it out for herself.
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.
I wish you had asked him about the word Virgin in the Christian Greek scriptures that is the New Testament. It is my understanding that in the Greek Septuagent which is the Old testment Hebrew and Aramaic text translated to Greek that the prophecy of the Maiden giving birth to the Messiah it doesnt carry the idea of a Virgin Birth but that it was a mistranslation. The Hebrew term meant young woman and when translated to Greek it was wrongly applied as virgin thus we have a virgin Mary!
Virgin Birth The intentional mistranslation of these virgin birth verses are not in academic dispute. There are abundant scholarly articles about it. The paper trails and sequence of events is well known and understood. The word used in Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 7:14) is "almah" ("young woman having reached puberty"). The Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, is "bethulah" ("virgin"). The Septuagint is a version of the Old Testament prepared in the 3rd century BC by Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew sciptures into Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish community. In translating for the Septuagint, "almah" was translated into Greek as "parthenos" ("virgin"). Thus, Isaiah's prophecy in the original Hebrew states that the Messiah would be conceived by an "almah" ("young woman"), whereas the Greek translation in the Septuagint version of Isaiah refers instead to a "parthenos" ("virgin"). So, the Gospel of Matthew (Luke copied Matthew's account, Mark and John do not assert a virgin birth) attempted to justify Jesus' divine parentage by tailoring the story of Jesus' conception to match the fulfilment of a prophecy that was never actually made. In the entire Christian corpus, the virgin birth is found only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of John (John 1:45) states that Jesus had both father and mother, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth". The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus' full humanity. The Gospel of Mark has no birth story and states that Jesus' mother had no belief in her son as having been created by a supernatural being, as if she had forgotten the angel's visit. None of the Gospels were written by witnesses to Jesus. Only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke is the virgin birth asserted. The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on very slender historical foundations. Both Matthew and Luke are late and anonymous compositions dating from the period AD 80-100. The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus's full humanity, stating that he was "born of a woman" like any other human being and "born under the law" like any Jew. The Gospel of Mark, dating from around AD 70, we read of Jesus saying that "prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house" - Mark 6:4), which suggests that Mark was not aware of any tradition of special circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, and while the author of the gospel of John is confident that Jesus is more than human he makes no reference to a virgin birth to prove his point. John in fact refers twice to Jesus as the "son of Joseph," the first time from the lips of the disciple Philip ("We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth" - John 1:45), the second from the unbelieving Jews ("Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?" - John 6:41).
@@twitherspoon8954 Stick with your academics. Clearly you've been deceived by false prophets. If you cannot see how God was mad at the Jewish leaders/religious types because they chased/killed His prophets, than you haven't read Jeremiah, Isiah and especially Ezekiel. Jesus was pretty much their last test, until the tribulation. Now go read Isiah 53 again and think harder. Come back and tell us what you find.
Excellent. There is also a world full of historical biblical scholars. Get a counterpoint perspective instead of one that is noted as contrary to the main stream thinking. His arguments have been debated and fall into the debatable category.
Yes, there were a few things that are being debated. Carrier, Madison and Pearce are ones I am reading at the moment, and they present a commanding counter view to Dr Ehrman.
ALL arguments fall into the "Debateable" category. It is especially true when you realize men have determined which gospels were included in the modern bible and which were deemed too different to be canon. Everything was designed to fit a narrative.
I just realized... I found this video on April 9th..thats today!. you guys talk about this debate he's doing...today weird. I need to look this up! I love Syncranicuties!!
I recommend you watch the first part of the movie Zeitgeist for context of Christianity vs previous religions. MANY ancient religions had virgin birth, resurrection etc etc.
Yup. And that proves NOTHING. Zeitgeist is interesting. And it is a TOWERING example of confirmation bias. Parallels between religions and mythologies are the rule, not the exception. Read books by Joseph Campbell.
The Immaculate Conception is to refer to Mary Mother. *When one speaks to the subject it is Wise to answer I"I don't know", rather than guess or assume. I recommend the works of the Late Glen Kimball, audio available from a number of interviews by Coast to Coast Radion, George Noory or his sub-hosts on the ""Regal Beagel Channel"* here on UA-cam. Also: History:New a Testament Era, (an entire semester of lectures, that one actually enjoys listening to by Yale University's, now retired, but Platinum, *Professor Emeritus, Dale Martin,* "I highly recommend" this series of clear teaching if the History).
_"The Immaculate Conception is to refer to Mary Mother."_ Actually, it was rape- God raped ("overshadowed") Mary while she was engaged to Joseph and while God was married to Asherah, Aholah and Aholibah (who were sisters). God's sons also "ravished" human females and impregnated them. God sent one of his representatives to tell Mary, that even though she was engaged to Joseph and frightened by the encounter, that God would impregnate her. The Bible uses the word "overshadow", which is the Greek word, "επισκιάζω" (episkiazó). Some Christians interpret "overshadow" to mean that some sort of mystical cloud or divine wind hovered over Mary and then she became pregnant. But the literal translation of the word is, "to overshadow, to use influence upon by a looming presence (skiá)" and figuratively means "to invest with preternatural (extraordinary, exceeding what is normal) influence". So, the "overshadowing" was God using what the Bible describes as the "extraordinary" coercion of his greater power and status to dominate and overpower Mary's desires and will by forcing his own desire to force unwanted sexual contact from frightened Mary with the intent of impregnating her. The word Mary uses to accept the command to be impregnated is "ginomai", which means "let it not be, far be it from, God forbid". In Mary's praise and thanksgiving to God in Luke 1:48 she says, “God has lifted up his humble maidservant.” The Greek word for “humble” is the same one that the Septuagint (the old Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) uses to describe the rape of Dinah in Genesis and other incidents of sexual violation.
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”-The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44
My first reaction to see Bart Ehrman was UGH. Not a fan of this guy. However, after the last 2 years, with ALL the lies spread by the world to include the Christian church, I'm now open to hearing his arguments in a new perspective.
@@chadsmith2281 How many Christian churches CLOSED because of the "virus"? Purely insane that they bought and promoted the lies of the entire scamdemic.
Yes, read the Torah and Tanakh (Jewish bible). It's not even the same story or same order it's all different lol. They just tried to kill us (jews) and stole our religion and then kept killing us. New Testament is hogwash, literal made up hog wash. Also, the historical Jesus meets zero requirements to be the Jewish messiah in the Old Testament. we (jews) still speak Hebrew and read all original scripts in Hebrew.
Yes, a lot of mistranslations occured and also knowledges were lost. I would suggest to anyone to read the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, the famous Jewish Historian from 100AD (and his other works). People forget that the understandings of the Torah were text, but also oral tradition. This way, you get the oral tradition as it was in 100AD. As for the New Testament, there were dozens of books that were not included in the Bible. The Nag Hammadi Library that contains most of the Gnostic texts not included is definitely a must read.
@@christianvachon2235 Bart seems to have forgotten about oral tradition as well. Simply dismissing the validity of the Old Testament based on the development of language is not very scholarly. The Jewish people in particular were proficient at codifying their faith through oral traditions, feast days, architectural structures, and clothing and other religious paraphernalia.
@@dschaffin Very true! Oral tradition is very important! I think I mentioned that, but my understandings is that the Jewish traditions was the combination of text and oral tradition. As much as people dismiss Josephus, I find that it adds a commentary to the possible oral of the Torah 2000 years ago before the translations and other things as well. It is suggested that 2000 years ago, the Jewish Faith was separated into 3 sects at the time (Pharisees, Essenes, Saduccees).
@@christianvachon2235 Yes, you did. Jesus would always say, “It is written…” when referring to scripture. Paul was educated and through his letters we get most of the New Testament. God is uncanny at putting the right person at the right time in history where they are needed most. I don’t read Greek or Hebrew, but I recognize the need for looking back to the original and not depending upon any one translation. Context is also super important. I think Bart is trying to appease by trying to put scripture in the context of modern times. Greek is a really robust language with words that carry a ton of meaning. Hebrew is a very graphic language with each stroke having meaning. Our language is neither. I think as a result, there is way more ambiguity in the modern English language. I think Bart tries to ascribe this ambiguity to the Word as well. It doesn’t fit for me.
If the ancient Greeks felt the way they did about male dominance how did Alexander get away with commanding his men to take a lover among his troops because people fight harder for someone they love than for a stranger?
Jahannah you are by far the coolest chick ever, I love your videos, ancient history is so fascinating and as I never went to school (naughty kid) I've learnt so much from you and your content. Keep it up as you rock 💯 🤠 🤘
What’s with his constant maniacal laughter? I’ve read some of this guy’s books and even listening to him talk I still find him really incoherent. Aside from that, I don’t trust his broad, simplistic generalization of the morals/ values of the entire “ancient world.” That’s covering an awful lot of ground about a very large and diverse population that lived a very long time ago.
Good summary of this shallow man. Men who giggle, or women too for that matter, give me the creeps. That said, at least he doesn’t try to say Jesus never existed. Johanna is a smart girl searching for truth and I hope she finds it. Yes, the Bible is full of human errors. God is real. Figure it out.
_"Virgin birth."_ The intentional mistranslation of these verses are not in academic dispute. There are abundant scholarly articles about it. The paper trails and sequence of events is well known and understood. The word used in Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 7:14) is "almah" ("young woman having reached puberty"). The Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, is "bethulah" ("virgin"). The Septuagint is a version of the Old Testament prepared in the 3rd century BC by Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew sciptures into Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish community. In translating for the Septuagint, "almah" was translated into Greek as "parthenos" ("virgin"). Thus, Isaiah's prophecy in the original Hebrew states that the Messiah would be conceived by an "almah" ("young woman"), whereas the Greek translation in the Septuagint version of Isaiah refers instead to a "parthenos" ("virgin"). So, the Gospel of Matthew (Luke copied Matthew's account, Mark and John do not assert a virgin birth) attempted to justify Jesus' divine parentage by tailoring the story of Jesus' conception to match the fulfilment of a prophecy that was never actually made. In the entire Christian corpus, the virgin birth is found only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of John (John 1:45) states that Jesus had both father and mother, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth". The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus' full humanity. The Gospel of Mark has no birth story and states that Jesus' mother had no belief in her son as having been created by a supernatural being, as if she had forgotten the angel's visit. None of the Gospels were written by witnesses to Jesus. Only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke is the virgin birth asserted. The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on very slender historical foundations. Both Matthew and Luke are late and anonymous compositions dating from the period AD 80-100. The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus's full humanity, stating that he was "born of a woman" like any other human being and "born under the law" like any Jew. The Gospel of Mark, dating from around AD 70, we read of Jesus saying that "prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house" - Mark 6:4), which suggests that Mark was not aware of any tradition of special circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, and while the author of the gospel of John is confident that Jesus is more than human he makes no reference to a virgin birth to prove his point. John in fact refers twice to Jesus as the "son of Joseph," the first time from the lips of the disciple Philip ("We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth" - John 1:45), the second from the unbelieving Jews ("Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?" - John 6:41).
I think there is a reason I found you... i watched your other Atlantis ring video and now this one. you seem like you have the right mind set. I have had a life time of experiences that can only be explained as super natural. I talked to you about the Cumberland thing before, but didn't tell you about how I am... this video hit head on. you know some people are born with special abilities, like your friend...mine are like way crazier though... I have had dreams about some really crazy things that have come true.. 2011 tornado out break I dreamed about it... Covid, I dreamed about it...the never ending hurricanes and storms... the lights in the sky, and even the on going missle problem. I would love to talk to you. I was born with what. most would call third eye, or what ever you might call it.. I can see things, all these things that are happening I saw when I did a meditation in a cave, and have dreamed about ever since... I list 11 hours in this cave thinking I was in meditation for 1 hour...i saw a movie like thing in my head...it was about the past all the way to the future.... it's crazy I know... but it's true... I do have witnessed to some of my claims..ive been married for 31 years, and she can tell you I'm legit. this being said being said I am going out on a limb telling you all of this stuff, but I can show you other alignments in ancient history, I've been shown some crazy things that all are coming to a head in our future. I do not care what any one says... you are dead on in your thinking. thank you!
Great interview!!! Thank you! The biggest argument for the resurrection is the Shroud of Turin. It is in 3D (we know that Jesus actually looked like post-beating and crucifixion. But, also, the way the image was left on the Shroud suggests exposure to intense light and heat (radiation).
No. *Conclusion* So, here’s the evidence I have presented for why the Shroud of Turin is clearly a hoax: - We have no reliable documentation of the Shroud of Turin’s existence until the fourteenth century. - The forger who made the Shroud of Turin confessed and the earliest definitive mention of the shroud in any historical source is a record of his confession. - The Shroud of Turin doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings used in Judaea in the time of Jesus or the description of Jesus’s own funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John. - The linen of the Shroud of Turin has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1260 and c. 1390 AD-well over a millennium after Jesus’s death. - The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions and much more closely resembles figures in fourteenth-century Gothic art than a real human being. - The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on. - The fabric of the Shroud of Turin is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used during the Late Middle Ages, but does not seem to have been used for burial shrouds in Judaea in the first century AD. All the evidence points to the inexorable conclusion that the Shroud of Turin is a late medieval hoax. Google *"The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten"*
@@LM-jz9vh Here is some questions/comments? - Do you have a document with the forger's confession? - Jesus was buried quickly, but there was also preparations made for what might be the resurrection, including the use of aloe, etc. to preserve the flesh. Jesus was Essene Jew and most of that community didn't live in Judea. - They recently did a cast/statue based on the 3D findings from the Shroud by computer. Studies revealed that it was a 3 dimensional image (done by computer) - had to be done on a live body, not painted. During this process, it was revealed that Jesus had severe wounds, including 600 cuts from lashings, as well as broken cheekbones. That is hard to fake. - The blood stains depends on when the injuries were sustained prior to burial. - The samples initially taken from the Shroud were done quickly. There is some repair from an earlier fire in the medieval era. The testing was never redone. The thing is that recent computer analysis revealed it to be a 3D image of a body, with correct feature (and distortions from heavy beating it seems), which would be impossible to fake or paint in the medieval era.
Wiki: "In 1988, radiocarbon dating established that the shroud was from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390. All hypotheses put forward to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted, including the medieval repair hypothesis, the bio-contamination hypothesis and the carbon monoxide hypothesis." "In 1390 Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII (Avignon Obedience) stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed." There are dozens of Shroud replicas out there and UA-cam videos demonstrating how to make them. It's astonishing that some actually believe we cannot make a pigment-infused piece of linen. Here's a scientist who made one- "Luigi Garlaschelli created a copy of the shroud by wrapping a specially woven cloth over one of his students, painting it with pigment, baking it in an oven (which he called a "shroud machine") for several hours, then washing it."
@@twitherspoon8954 It is possible. The problem is that the 3D images reveal features of someone with severe physical abuse from beating (broken cheekbones, etc.). That would be hard to artificially reproduce from painting. Also, the placement of the nails is correct from Roman crucifixion practices unlike other representations of the time. Jesus' body was anointed with myrrh and aloe which would match the coloring in the cloth - orange reddish tint. I don't see why it might not be authentic. That it appeared in Europe at the time of the Crusades doesn't mean it wasn't existent beforehand.
@@christianvachon2235 _"Jesus' body was anointed with..."_ Provide evidence Jesus existed. You have no idea what you're talking about. _"That it appeared in Europe at the time of the Crusades doesn't mean it wasn't existent beforehand."_ Try familiarizing yourself with the science on the subject- INVESTIGATING A DATED PIECE OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN RADIOCARBON Vol 52, Nr 4, 2010, p 1521-1527 Rachel A Freer-Waters The study asserting there were serum lines around the blood stains of the shroud was retracted. It is stamped at the title line in large, bold, red, capitalized text, "RETRACTED" with the explanation provided by the editorial board that is was due to bad science. Further, that study even acknowledged forgery was involved in the artifact. Re: Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud Elvio Carlino ,Liberato De Caro,Cinzia Giannini,Giulio Fanti Published: June 30, 2017
Here it is; The Greek translation, the Septuagint, rendered the word almah, meaning a young woman of childbearing age who had not yet given birth, as parthenos,which means virgin; Isaiah 7:14 and therefore did not know that it mistranslated the Hebrew word ‘almāh as virgin instead of “young woman.” On the basis of this mistranslation, Gospel writers came up with the idea that Jesus’ mother, in order to fulfill the prediction of Isaiah 7:14, needed to be a virgin-and so simply made it up.
Utter nonsense… The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek. Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation. Alma: Virgin or Young Woman? Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example: If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16). In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example: And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12). If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says, The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up. Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says, I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…” Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way: There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
Look into Arius Calpurnius Piso and his many pen names. Him and his family are the greatest stealth editors in history. He re-wrote Aristotle, and invented Flavious Josephus. Arius coordinated the authorship of the New Testament (using existing apocryphal texts) and used his own likeness to propagate the modern depiction of Jesus in art, His son Julius Piso, in a classic example of rebellion, used his shot at writing "Revelations" to call him out as satan.
He’s wrong about that virgin line, Egypt practiced this as well as Persia and think the Sumerians were the first to talk about a virgin birth. Where’d get this guy smh 🤦♂️
numbers 12:4 At once the Lord said to Moses, Aaron and Miriam, “Come out to the tent of meeting, all three of you.” So the three of them went out. 5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When the two of them stepped forward, 6 he said, “Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. 7 But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” 9 The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them. 10 When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous[a]-it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease, 11 and he said to Moses, “Please, my lord, I ask you not to hold against us the sin we have so foolishly committed. 12 Do not let her be like a stillborn infant coming from its mother’s womb with its flesh half eaten away.” 13 So Moses cried out to the Lord, “Please, God, heal her!” 14 The Lord replied to Moses, “If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days? Confine her outside the camp for seven days; after that she can be brought back.” 15 So Miriam was confined outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on till she was brought back.
I LOVE LOVE your work Indihanna James. That being said, I'm making my smoothie and listening and watching this video and all I can hear is Bart saying "blah blah, I know it all, blah blah blah, I was there at that time in all ancient history and I saw it all, blah blah, you're all wrong, blah blah." I'm not saying that he made a few good points and I've got to give him that. However, I'm not a "hardcore" anything on the front of Christianity, Methodist, Protestant, Catholic (and I was raised the ol' Roman Catholicism-they spoke only Latin in service🤔) or any of that type of religion. Many of the words in red in the King James Bible J.C. states a great disdain for religion as well as saying "I am not from this world". I'm just spiritual in general but it's really hard to listen to this guy and I have not found one video that I didn't absolutely adore by you! ...but this guy. 🧐 I guess he was alive and saw with his own eyes all of this at the time that he is saying "this didn't happen", "everyone is wrong but me", "that didn't happen, I know cuz I know. I know just cuz I know." I think you can find him on channel Bart knows all about everything if you'd like to take a watch. 😆 On to lighter things, Jo I love you 🤗🌹and thank you for all your enlightening and unbiased work! 💚🌍💙
Actually all ancient myths are based on the stores of the Bible. Before the Bible was written down, God interacted with mankind since the beginning. People deviated from worshiping Elohim and created their own gods and fallen Angles and adapted the original stories to fit their new religions. Most of the ancient technologies you talk about in your videos are examples of the fallen Angles interacting with early man. The structures that are buried and have older carbon dated material close to there base structure, are what was buried by Noah's flood. The Earth was over populated and had advanced technologies before the great flood wiped the earth clean.
@@twitherspoon8954 sorry HE is still exist but in Heaven . If you are looking for proof of it you can find them in the Bible and many many historical books .
@@marcinwojtowicz2417 _"If you are looking for proof of it you can find them in the Bible and many many historical books."_ So, provide evidence Jesus existed. None of the Bible authors witnessed Jesus so how would the Bible be evidence Jesus existed?
Question for you and dr. bart did jesus not raise lazerus from several days of death and then a child he also gets credit for so why wouldn't that be a prelude for his own? Not completely buying this one miracles do happen.
Cool video Jahanna, interesting subject. After interviewing Bart it might be worth you speaking to/interviewing Dr Richard Carrier for a slightly different perspective :)
Johanna could converse on the topic of Milk Bottle Tops and I would still be absolutely entertained, she is wonderful, full of intrigue. I think it is so important to appreciate the contextual implications of Religion and History. Cool show
You could reasonably discuss the factual origins of the Bible, the varying supportive texts, and even draw a comparison between origin stories without mocking, laughing, and ridiculing. Bart Ehrman is just an atheist with the dogma of an atheist. Atheism is as much a religion as any other. He interprets the New Testament through that lens. He assigns motives to the text for which he has zero supporting evidence. There is a reason that all origin stories are similar. The fact that written origin stories might precede the origin stories of the Bible is due to the development of written language. 🙄 His premises and teachings are ridiculous. Your foray into Bible “interpretation” with an atheist was a complete failure.
@N RJ _"History."_ So, again... provide evidence Jesus existed. According to the Bible, a star appeared in the sky leading to the birthplace of the prophesied messiah; Jesus was recognized at birth as the prophesied messiah; A "multitude" of angels came down from heaven and told "everyone" that god was born and "everyone heard it"; Distinguished foreigners (maji) traveled to bear the infant god gifts, guided by a star; King Herod killed all the male infants in the region in order to eliminate the baby god; Jesus traveled the region for thirty years; his fame “went throughout all Syria” and he and his entourage were followed by “great multitudes”; Jesus performed 36 miracles, including calming a storm, walking on water and through walls, and raising three people from the dead; Whichever city Jesus went to, everyone who touched his clothes were healed, including the blind and the paralyzed; He was tried by the Sanhedrin High Court, the High Priest, Roman governor Pontius Pilate, and King Herod Antipas; Jesus had a very public execution from which he later became undead and his corpse disappeared from a secured tomb; After Jesus became undead, he made 12 appearances to more than 500 persons; After his resurrection, all of the graves opened and the corpses rose out and walked into town and "appeared to many". Yet, there was no contemporaneous memorialization and/or corroboration of any of that, in any way. In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, carving, sculpture or monument, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence or official record. The only Bible author who claimed to have met Jesus described him only as a bright light. None of the Gospel writers were witnesses to Jesus. Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. Wouldn't you think if a baby was recognized as God at birth, and met dignitaries, and this God was walking around town for thirty years, performing 36 miracles and raising the dead, and was publicly executed and then his body disappeared from a secure tomb, and then the graves opened and the corpses rose out and walked into town, and the sun went dark for three hours, that someone at the time would have noticed and memorialized it in some way?
@N RJ _"He died on your cross making a choice."_ Nope. He was a human sacrifice. I condemn ritual human sacrifice, rape, and cannibalism; Christians literally worship them. Ritual Human Sacrifice- God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a human sacrifice (a practice adopted from Paganism)- John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." 1 John 4:10 "This is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Philippians 2:8 "Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross." Galatians 1:4 "Christ obeyed God our Father and gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins to rescue us from this evil world." Romans 5:8 "But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." ~~~~~~~~~~~ Rape- God raped ("overshadowed") Mary while she was engaged to Joseph and while God was married to Asherah, Aholah and Aholibah (who were sisters). God's sons also "ravished" human females and impregnated them. God sent one of his representatives to tell Mary, that even though she was engaged to Joseph and frightened by the encounter, that God would impregnate her. The Bible uses the word "overshadow", which is the Greek word, "επισκιάζω" (episkiazó). Some Christians interpret "overshadow" to mean that some sort of mystical cloud or divine wind hovered over Mary and then she became pregnant. But the literal translation of the word is, "to overshadow, to use influence upon by a looming presence (skiá)" and figuratively means "to invest with preternatural (extraordinary, exceeding what is normal) influence". So, the "overshadowing" was God using what the Bible describes as the "extraordinary" coercion of his greater power and status to dominate and overpower Mary's desires and will by forcing his own desire to force unwanted sexual contact from frightened Mary with the intent of impregnating her. The word Mary uses to accept the command to be impregnated is "ginomai", which means "let it not be, far be it from, God forbid". In Mary's praise and thanksgiving to God in Luke 1:48 she says, “God has lifted up his humble maidservant.” The Greek word for “humble” is the same one that the Septuagint (the old Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) uses to describe the rape of Dinah in Genesis and other incidents of sexual violation. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Cannibalism is an integral part of Christianity- John 6:53 "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a difficult and harsh and offensive statement. Who can accept it?" From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
@N RJ _"History."_ The Jesus story began in 48 AD with the first of the Pauline Epistles (which comprise nearly half of the New Testament books) when Paul realized the Daniel 9:25 prophesy of a messiah failed to fulfill on time, so he made one up decades after the date for the prophesied fulfillment but he set the story decades in the past to make the prophesy seem true. The fulfillment of the Daniel 9:25 prophecy written in 538 BC was the test of the true messiah. By 48 AD it was known that the prophecy of a messiah coming in "seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" had not occurred on the prophesied date. "Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" is, 7 plus 60 plus 2 equals 69 total weeks. One prophetic week equals seven years, so 7 times 69 equals 483 total years beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458 BC. Paul made up the entire Jesus story and added historical figures, locations, and events to add authenticity. Paul's goal was to garner support for the war against the Romans. He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah (literal son of God). He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' war against the Romans. Instead, he created one of the world's most popular religions that is based on the literal worship of ritual human sacrifice, rape, and cannibalism. The Gospel authors copied, and embellished, Paul's fiction. None of the Gospel authors, or any other writers, were witnesses to the Bible figure known as Jesus.
You should look into Archeo-Acoustiscs. It's a newer field in which they're discovered that by using sounds they become able to use low hertz sounds to lift stone blocks many times their own weight. There seems to be good evidence that Stonehenge was built using sound and/or acoustics. It's fascinating.
As a father of two daughters, I bet your Dad is so proud to have you debate him even if you don't agree. I prize the times my daughters care enough about something to form strong opinions and I love it even more when they fight for what they believe because it shows they are thinking of things at a deeper level. It's not even about right or wrong. As a father it's just a JOY in my soul that they want a deeper understanding of things.
I learned a long time ago that being right is not always important because somethings in life are just impossible to comprehend until you have more life experience to wrap around what you are trying to think of. The best way to gain more and more insight is to live a full life and to always be questioning the meanings behind things. Things that might be very true and obvious to you in your youth CAN but not always become less straightforward as you gain more perspectives to think about things as you get older. It's also true that as you get older you can be more set in your ways and not as able to view things from different angles than from your own experience so younger minds can sometimes see things that older people are blind or to lazy to see.
So it's a blessing when we debate from different perspectives and from across different age groups because we expose ourselves to a larger and more beautiful world full of honest thoughts.
Always question everything!
I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene….No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus.
Albert Einstein
Ever read Isiah 53? The whole chapter.
Yes, a prophecy fulfilled 700 years later by Christ on Calgary, Praise King Jesus the Christ 👑
*Over 1,600 prophecies fulfilled and Counting*
@@historysmysteriesunveiled8043 you will enjoy this channel . . . ua-cam.com/users/ONEFORISRAEL
@@historysmysteriesunveiled8043 I heard Christ was a Maple Leaf not a Flames fan!
I really hope you get a chance to interview people that have different opinions or evidence to point to other than Dr. Ehrman's. I've read several sources that present arguments and historical evidence that flatly and diametrically stand in opposition to many of the concepts Ehrman presents here.
Ehrman is self aggrandiosing in almost all of his comments. He is a typical example of an academic who believes their position in the paradigm of history is bonafide fact. He simply forgets that he wasn't actually there. He's the Christianity equivalent of the antiquities ministry of Egypt.
Johanna really believes guys like Ehrman. She openly states that the reason governments all over the world try to cover up alternative history (like the Flood) is because it proves biblical narratives WRONG. This girl blows my mind. How on Earth she thinks that the governments of the World are helping to protect the narrative of religion, but specifically the Judaeo/Christian religion is completely beyond me. Especially since alternative history leans HARD into the Biblical narrative.
And Bart Ehrman is a whole other bag of lies. This guy will write a scientific article saying one thing and then sell a book and get paid thousands of dollars to do a lecture saying the exact opposite.
But people like Johanna like him. lol.
I agree. This guy laughing off anything opposed to his opinion is what is wrong with academic thought.
@@timothyhawkins3627
Word.
_"I've read several sources that present arguments and historical evidence.."_
Name one.
Provide evidence Jesus existed.
Anything Jahanna James is worth a watch... Just for the quality facial expressions...
@@joachimgrossmann1689 or just reading a dictionary. She is such a fun person.
😅 Dos equis needs to make a commercial about her! The most interesting girl in the world!😄😄😄 keep sharing luv. Keep that content coming!😁
It would be splendid if she would blend this subject matter with an OnlyFans flare.
Old white pervies (of course, I agree)
If she platforms anti-Christians like this she'll be huge on here
An interesting spin-off from this video could be the Dead Sea Scrolls!! The scrolls were retained and some written by the Essenes who played a major role in Jewish history up to the time of Jesus birth. In line with Dr. Ehrman's approach of basing research off what is actually written, we can now use that same basis of what was 'written', but this time we can go right to the source at the time just before Jesus was born. Also, it is believed that Jesus was of the Essene community. I think a detailed and in depth study of the Essenes and Dead Sea Scrolls will pay off in a great epiphany/awakening to many!!
And you continue to ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the fact that the Jesus story and the pagan godman myths are the same story. The problem is that you're letting emotion overpower logic. You'd have no trouble believing that the Dionysus myth came from an earlier godman myth even if everything you claim is true about the Jesus myth was true about it (story told in the context of a definite historical time period, birth, ministry and death pinpointable to an exact year etc.). The problem here is the fact that we're talking about Jesus, who you consider to be your god. It's so important for you to believe that Jesus really existed that the emotional center of your brain simply won't allow you to see the gorilla. It's time for you to be a Vulcan, Jay. It's time for you to get that emotional center under control. It's time for a little intellectual honesty.
You don't know the process I have been through to come to these conclusions. I actually began as a believer in early life. Then I became a skeptic in that I wanted to research every religion and philosophy to see which ones had merit. Who is to say that the god-king Dali Lama does not have the same merit as Jesus? For a four to five year period, I went through a stage of inquiry. I read the transcendentalist philosophers. I saw the Dali Lama speak at my university. I listened to hours of lectures by psychologists, philosophers, and Native American mystics.
I came to the conclusion that Christianity was by far the superior philosophy and worldview. There is no real contest. Ironically, my true conversion to Christianity did not come until several years after I came to this intellectual conclusion.
I have also met many others who have come to the same conclusion when they have opened themselves to honest inquiry. Your problem is that you don't really know as much as you think you do.
Assuming that I am ruled by emotions and not logic means that you must know everything about me. It also assumes a kind of dualism that I don't accept. All people are influenced by rational thought and emotion. You cannot separate the two as the Gnostics tried to do.
Using your level of skepticism, I would have to doubt the existence of almost every historical figure.
When you say that Jesus did not exist, you are relying on a popular notion that was in vogue about 100 years ago for a short time. But the problem was that many of the skeptics went searching for answers and found nothing to prove their conjecture, but everything to prove the traditional Christian view.
Some of the greatest Christian theologians of this time period began as skeptics. Skepticism can strengthen the rigor of intellectual inquiry, but it cannot be simply blind dismissal of all evidence. If I were not willing to be skeptical, I would not even be participating in this discussion. I will consider each idea that casts doubt on my faith, however, you haven't presented me with anything that I have not encoutntered before.
I just got done with a research project called in which I debunk most of what you are throwing at me.
www.forerunner.com/realjesus/part1.html
Most of what you are telling me is found in the literature of the neo-Gnostic movement which has gained some ground in the past 20 years. The difference is that most of these people don't doubt Jesus existed. That is the wrong tack to take.
The idea that Jesus did not exist is non-existent in history up until the age of rationalism -- and it has largely disappeared because most have found it rational to suppose Christ existed. The few crackpots like Timothy Freke who still spout this view rely on poor scholarship, faulty logic and mountains of unsubstantiated conjecture.
I am surprised you haven't commented on Freke's "Global Brain" conjecture. Is that a rational belief or an emotional one?
While this is an enlightening and enjoyable discussion, I don't want to run over old ground continually. The "Roman Records" debate doesn't need to be revisited, nor does the merit of Christian eyewitnesses debate. Unless AMBomb can provide me with something genuinely new, I don't see the purpose of constant repetition.
Here is a new tack: The idea that Jesus was not a real historical person didn't occur to anyone until the 1700s and 1800s. Why? Simply because people closest to the original source eyewitnesses knew that they could not discount His existence.
In the first and second centuries, early Christians had to deal with ridicule and abuse from Jewish rabbis and intellectual skepticism from Greek scholars and philosophers.
However, none of these skeptics attacked Christianity on the basis of the so-called "Christ-myth" or on the claims that supernatural miracles were impossible. The Jews and pagans of the day readily accepted that Christ lived and performed miracles. The pagans, such as Celsus, argued that His miracles were too commonplace (healing the sick, casting out of demons, providing food and wine) and did not rise to the level of what God could actually accomplish through His omnipotence.
The Jews tried to cast doubt that Jesus was the Christ by claiming that He was illegitimate and not born of the prophesied virgin. They claimed that his power came from the devil and not from God. They also started a rumor that the disciples stole His body. This indicates that they knew He was crucified and had to account for the claims by the disciples that He rose from the dead.
Note that the skeptics of Jesus' day could have easily harangued Christians into providing proof that Jesus actually existed. But NONE OF THEM did this. Why? Because being so close to the source eyewitnesses, they knew that their testimony was valid.
In addition, rationalists cannot make the claim that Christians invented the arguments of the primitive skeptics. The Jewish writings have been preserved independently by Jewish scribes. Regarding pagan writings preserved by Christian scribes, it would have been counter-productive for the early Christian apologists to argue against a skepticism that did not exist. Unless the skeptics of their day readily accepted that Jesus Christ had a historical ministry, they would not have made such arguments.
Modernists display the most shameless form of egotism when they assume that almost 2000 years from the events, that they are better judges of what transpired in the first century, than those closest to the source.
While Bart does know his stuff he can be very loose with the truth, especially when it comes to the historicity of Yeshua. I would love to see Johanna interview Richard Carrier for some balance. Make it happen he's awesome!
If you have evidence Jesus existed, provide it.
Totally agree! I'm a Mythassist like Carrier and I feel Bart's divinity school indoctrination really clouded his objectivity through out his career.
@@twitherspoon8954 To whom was that directed? Sarcasm detector failing.
@@gianni_schicchi
Your turn: If you have evidence Jesus existed, provide it.
@@twitherspoon8954 You yourself can't prove the Non Existence of Jesus' the Christ!
These stores are archetypes. They continually reoccur.
Archetypes do not exist.
Yay Jahannah. Another great start to a wonderful day.
"I am the Resurrection and the Life, says the Lord. Whoever dies and believes in Me shall live forever, and whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die."
Yes! The vast historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection has been thoroughly discussed in ”The Case for Christ” book by Lee Strobel. I highly recommend to everybody, who needs substance.
thank you so much for providing this awesome content Jahanna !!!
Utter nonsense…
The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek.
Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation.
Alma: Virgin or Young Woman?
Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example:
If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16).
In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example:
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12).
If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says,
The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.
Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says,
I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…”
Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way:
There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
I've watched every video that you've put up on this channel. I'm addicted. Great content & very educational, in an entertaining format. I'm looking forward to much, much more. Also, I'm now going to all the links you've posted of your colleagues youtube channels, so thanks for that too.
Off topic, I wasn't sure if I would enjoy Deep Heat, but then I binge watched it & am hoping for a 2nd season. Funny, lighthearted entertainment. Good work. Congrats from Australia :)
All of your videos are really great. Can't wait for the next. Thank you so much!
The fact that this woman is so interested in all this stuff makes here 10X more attractive than she already very much is. The fact she's not half naked, constantly staring at photographs of herself is massively appealing. Wish there were more young woman like her.
WOW.. what a phenomenal human and Woman.
This is a weird comment
@@entropygirll right? Very weird.
Yes I agree 100%. I see so many young women making videos of them just doing every day stuff like cooking. They do it in very revealing clothing. some guys go crazy over it but I think it just cheapens them. Yes most are very beautiful but it just shows how low they think of themselves. Everything doesn't haft to be sexualized.
@@entropygirll it was oddly specific.
Just To Add A little. The Twin founders of Rome Romulus and Remus was said to be born of the Virgin Rhea Silva. Also Ra in Ancient Egypt was said to be born of a virgin mother also. Horus was the son of the Virgin Isis.
A good one is the Phrygo-Roman God Attis was born of a Virgin, Nana, on December 25th.
Plato also talks about virgin births.
I love your videos. Your energy really keeps you interested in the videos you make. Great job
And there’s many that say the word in the Bible doesn’t mean virgin just young woman.
Isis was no virgin. People like you are pests never even reading up anything.
And Jason all that stuff you're posting is nothing more than Satan trying to deceive people to try to sit here and believe in God's just so people like you can sit here and bring up things of other things that are happening that have supposedly happened those have never happened. All saying is trying to do is manipulate people to believe in fake gods.
Yes! I heard him say "no other virgins" and Had to go look at the comments to be sure someone had answered that one! Phew
Your either talking about artificial insemination, or your not talking.
Its pretty much impossible to impregnate a woman, who is a virgin, end of story....
Catching up on your videos, got more to watch . Thank you fascinating stuff. 🙏
Love it!!! Great work Jahanna.
This is terrible work and utter nonsense…
The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek.
Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation.
Alma: Virgin or Young Woman?
Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example:
If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16).
In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example:
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12).
If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says,
The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.
Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says,
I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…”
Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way:
There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
Through much tutelage via Randall “The Great” Carlson, as well as my own curiosity and research, I’ve become quite a bit of a nerd myself.. 😉🤓
Thanks for the content and keep sponging up knowledge and ringing it out for us in that enthusiastic style you have cultivated. 😃
Outstanding video!🙌🏻🕊
Please, please, please get Ralph Ellis on and interview him about Jesus, King Arthur, Cleopatra or Egypt and how they all connect.
Jahanna you are amazing! Loved the talk of ancient history find it fascinating and you produce these quality videos. You’re the best x
Thanks Jahanna. That was really interesting. Love your channel and am fascinated by the same stuff
Utter nonsense…
The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek.
Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation.
Alma: Virgin or Young Woman?
Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example:
If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16).
In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example:
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12).
If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says,
The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.
Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says,
I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…”
Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way:
There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
The Immortality Key is a great book that gives thorough comparisons between Christianity and other religions. Also goes in depth on what Christianity was BEFORE the Romans took control of it.
I’m really interested in that
They didn’t take complete control but they sure were on a crusade to lol. The Papacy killed more than Hitler smh
@@FunnyOldeWorld Pls interview the author of that book! :)
@@FunnyOldeWorld
Resources you will be delighted to discover:
I recommend the works of the late *"Glen Kimball",* audio available from a number of interviews by Coast to Coast Radio, Hosted by: George Noory or his sub-hosts, copies of shows found on the ""Regal Beagel Channel"* here on UA-cam.
Also: History:New Testament Era, (an entire semester of lectures, that one actually enjoys listening to by Yale University's, now retired, but Platinum, *Professor Emeritus, Dale Martin,* "I highly recommend" this series of clear teaching of the History).
I know you will *Enjoy* these, (I may not agree with the interpretations on all points but there's vast real facts in these.) Grab a pad/pen, you will definitely want to make a few notes.
The Immaculate Conception is said to refer to Mary's Mother.
(Your Guest leaves me a bit - extorting to apply my Higher Mind)
However the subject deserves Facts and an Ethical Mature Minded discussion. I encourage you continue your journey and wish you most positive realizations and successes.
Best Regards,
Beth
History Researcher and Sociologist
Tennessee, USA
PS:
I also encourage watching:
*"The Last Druid"* (UA-cam Video)
...and for insight and perspective:
*"The Century of the Self"* as it gives a Graduate's of Journalism 8nsight to Information and our Influece by Information. Much value for those whom are focused on sharing information and realization 9f the responsibility in doing so. Wisdom content.
Journalism my 3rd degree subject.
I will share more resources as they come to mind. (Learn the "Universal Law of Attraction", and in its most fundamental sense. It literally defined the subject of the Universe in its Creation =
The Law is a fact of Quantum Physics Science in it's having definined it through studies and it is *"Absolute".*
It states that: *"All that is manifested into 3D Matter Reality, 1st requires Thought"*
......... the Bang came 2nd
Now, consider the "Law 9f Attraction" as it relates to the "Mustard Seed" analogy made by Yeshua/Jesus ...
Read or listen to the "Gospel of Thomas" for Jesus instructing "How to Pray to receive".
Other Individuals and resources that address this subject: Gregg Braden, Scientist, Researcher, Author, Presentor.
These are truly worthy resources for your subject/interest.
Urgh not that old dross???!!! Still??? This has been debunked and debunked and it's so tired. I'm sooooo over it and shocked it's still getting wheeled out!
Jews, Muslims, and christians all agree Jesus was a person alive.
China also has people who said they saw a Arab man preaching the same stuff Jesus said.
So looks very possible he was here.
What he was is debatable.
Take a look at the Hemis monastery in Laddakh. The records of that Vajrayana monastery contains the records of a visitor who highly resembles Jesus. He is also mentioned in a scripture of a sect of yogis called Natha namavali, and it's also said that he visited Jagannath Puri.
Re: Mary being a “virgin”.
one needs to look at what the term actually meant back in that timeframe.
The meaning has changed over time.
_"Re: Mary being a “virgin”."_
The intentional mistranslation of these verses are not in academic dispute. There are abundant scholarly articles about it. The paper trails and sequence of events is well known and understood.
The word used in Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 7:14) is "almah" ("young woman having reached puberty").
The Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, is "bethulah" ("virgin").
The Septuagint is a version of the Old Testament prepared in the 3rd century BC by Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew sciptures into Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish community.
In translating for the Septuagint, "almah" was translated into Greek as "parthenos" ("virgin").
Thus, Isaiah's prophecy in the original Hebrew states that the Messiah would be conceived by an "almah" ("young woman"), whereas the Greek translation in the Septuagint version of Isaiah refers instead to a "parthenos" ("virgin").
So, the Gospel of Matthew (Luke copied Matthew's account, Mark and John do not assert a virgin birth) attempted to justify Jesus' divine parentage by tailoring the story of Jesus' conception to match the fulfilment of a prophecy that was never actually made.
In the entire Christian corpus, the virgin birth is found only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
The Gospel of John (John 1:45) states that Jesus had both father and mother, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth".
The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus' full humanity.
The Gospel of Mark has no birth story and states that Jesus' mother had no belief in her son as having been created by a supernatural being, as if she had forgotten the angel's visit.
None of the Gospels were written by witnesses to Jesus.
Only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke is the virgin birth asserted.
The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on very slender historical foundations. Both Matthew and Luke are late and anonymous compositions dating from the period AD 80-100. The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus's full humanity, stating that he was "born of a woman" like any other human being and "born under the law" like any Jew.
The Gospel of Mark, dating from around AD 70, we read of Jesus saying that "prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house" - Mark 6:4), which suggests that Mark was not aware of any tradition of special circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, and while the author of the gospel of John is confident that Jesus is more than human he makes no reference to a virgin birth to prove his point. John in fact refers twice to Jesus as the "son of Joseph," the first time from the lips of the disciple Philip ("We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth" - John 1:45), the second from the unbelieving Jews ("Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?" - John 6:41).
@@twitherspoon8954 Isiah 53, next.
@@permafrost7781
_"Isiah 53, next."_
What's your point?
You know Jesus is a fictional character, right?
@@twitherspoon8954 nobody "knows" anything. That's kind of the point of the video. 🙄
@@twitherspoon8954
He was real...as the day is long, he wasn't born of Earth'...
Joseph an Mary were his adoptive parents....
Would love more content about ancient religion and how they influenced each other
Michael Heiser is a good place to start - linguistically and historically he is erudite. Hugh Ross is a physicist who wanted to debunk the Bible...and there's a cold case cop guy too. I started my Gnostic research by reading the books not accepted because the Roman Catholic Church is not to be trusted...at all!
your beauty is jaw dropping JJ...and you make this stuff so interesting. I was hooked when I found GH, AJW and RC. You're slowly revitalising my curiosity for this lost story.
I’m missing your content! Please come back soon! We miss you
In my studies, virginity was not something any Jewish girl bragged about in Mary’s day. It wasn’t cool.
Horus, Isis and Osiris Egyptian story for the Bible equals Mary, Jesus and God.
I tell you a secret: claims can be checked using google! Put in the names you dropped, read up who Osiris, Isis and Horus were, and be ashamed. Be very ashamed!
Hilarious. You don't even know your source. I'll tell you who it is. Gerald Massey. Alexander Hislop picked up his nonsense and ran with it.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 Christians also may have adapted the iconography of the Egyptian goddess Isis nursing her son Horus and applied it to the Virgin Mary nursing her son Jesus. Some Christians also may have conflated stories about the Egyptian god Osiris with the resurrection of Jesus. Took your advice and used Google
At 9:52 regarding similarities between religions, seems like "the perennial philosophy" is a good explanation. If there is a fundamental truth hidden beyond the veil which underpins our material existence (such as the mystery of human consciousness), it would likely be the kind of thing that is unveiled by spiritually advanced beings again and again across time and location. They don't borrow from each other; they just tap into the same Truth.
Hello, I'm a new subsciber to your channel and your videos are interesting. On your recommendation I watched the BAM video and with all the locations on the points of instability on a line around the planet it occurs to me that maybe they were built to create tectonic stability.
The Osiris story matches the Nimrod story perfectly
What ?
The question you should of asked was, are there any contemporary texts that describe the Jesus story.
_"...are there any contemporary texts that describe the Jesus story."_
There is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus existed.
None of the Gospel authors, or any other writers, witnessed the Bible figure known as Jesus.
All four Gospels were written anonymously and all were written after 70 AD.
In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, carving, sculpture or monument, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence or official record.
Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.
The earliest Gospel fragment we have dates from the second century (John 18). More than 80% of New Testament manuscripts date to the 5th century or later.
@@twitherspoon8954
That's because Jesus wasn't a religious figure, that is not what he was sent to Earth for ...
He's been USED ...by almost every religious denomination, if only ppl knew, he came from a place where religion isn't even a thing ..
there ugo ....
@@twitherspoon8954 Most, if not all contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed by the Roman Empire. If it is indeed not all, some writings are most definitely within the Vatican's library.
@@TivonSanders
_"Most, if not all contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed by the Roman Empire."_
LOL, how convenient.
So then 400 years later it appears.
I would expect that if God was walking around town for thirty years that the locals would have noticed.
@@TivonSanders
_"Most, if not all contemporary evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed by the Roman Empire."_
How convenient.
Yet Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.
The earliest Gospel fragment we have dates from the second century (John 18). More than 80% of New Testament manuscripts date to the 5th century or later.
Oooh.. I'm interested in this debate with your dad about the Atlantis thing. Have you uploaded it yet?!I can't find it on your channel video list...
Thanks JJ, more new info!
Very interesting but I am catholic and I would like to hear how this might not have happened
I love your channel and I'm very excited about women who enter into this discourse dominated by men. Two comments: 1) contemporary beliefs around gender, sexuality & orientation are as much about power as they ever were. Yes, the Greeks had their own take on how power dynamics were reflected and expressed in sexual identities & relationships but so do we. 2) "Ancient world" is a broad term for a lot of centuries over a lot of geographies. I really wish folks would specify which civilizations/societies/cultures they are talking about. Thanks for all the videos.
Love ❤️ your energy and enthusiasm is very contagious. This was interesting for sure
Thanks so much for being brave enough to tackle such a thorny and sometimes divisive subject. Whether one believes or not, it's so important that we can discuss it like mature adults and if not convinced towards one side or the other, then agree to disagree and continue on without getting upset. 👍
Looking forward to this. Also J.J I am so happy for you with the TV thing. Many strings to your bow! Brilliant! I have a hearing issue as well, yet next week... I am being taught by Songwriters who have number 1's from all over the world! Deaf Rules:)
I hope she got cast as Hyacinth Bucket for a reboot of Keeping Up Appearances.
Shri Krishna was born to Devaki, who was a virgin.
the origin of the word virgin means to be puur,so what it says is "Shri Krishna was born to Devaki the puur" virgin became entangled with no sex only later on.
a story becomes a hot mess when you dont know the origins of a word.
What’s with the nervous uncontrolled laughter after each statement 🤔
What do you make of Bucegi Hall of records? Do you know anything about this?
I just found your channel and LOVE your presentation.
How did you become interested in all this?
Maybe you have already shared that?
IF so...
would you make it available
as reference video
and suggest it in your notes after every video you make?
I'm not sure which video but Jahanna has mentioned growing up in a religious family, something about her father being a pastor...I could be wrong though
It's my understanding that there was no letter J in Hebrew back then. His name was more likely Yeshua. Read The Knostic Gospels if you haven't already. From the actual writings and they said it was a spiritual resurrection.
_"Read The Knostic Gospels if you haven't already. From the actual writings and they said it was a spiritual resurrection."_
They were written in the 4th century.
_"His name was more likely Yeshua."_
How many names did Jesus have?
Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the messiah's name will be Emmanuel.
Notably, that is not one of the many New Testament names of the Bible figure commonly known as Jesus.
What was Jesus' real name?
It's a secret. No one knows his name-
Revelation 19:12
Jesus-
Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31
Jesus Christ-
John 1:17
The Son of Man-
Matthew 8:20
The Son of the Highest-
Luke 1:32
The Son of David-
Matthew 9:27
The Son of God-
Luke 1:35
The Holy One of God-
Mark 1:23-24
The Lord of Our Righteousness-
Jeremiah 23:6
Alpha and Omega-
Revelation 1:8
The Amen-
Revelation 3:14
The Lion of the Tribe of Juda, The Root of David-
Revelation 5:5
Faithful and True-
Revelation 19:11
King of Kings and Lord of Lords-
Revelation 19:16
The Bright and Morning Star (shared with Lucifer, Isaiah 14:12)-
Revelation 22:16
There was not a letter "J" in ANY language until the 17th century - not just Hebrew.
vids on UA-cam about the VOWELS: ua-cam.com/video/oMtQt5c6u80/v-deo.html
@@twitherspoon8954 You really think you know the bible, don't you? LOL That "Jesus" in Revelation 19, is not the real Jesus. Not the one of the gospels at least. In Acts 1, an Angel clearly states that the same Jesus the disciples saw ascending to heaven, "In like manner, will one day return". Returning to earth declaring war on the world, is *not* returning the same way, or "like manner" he left us. He left peaceably, so he'll return peaceably. Daniel 7, where the Ancient of Days was written about, also speaks of "One like the Son of Man" coming back to earth in the "clouds". In the original Hebrew texts, the term "One like the" is *not* written. Therefore, it was added into the KJV and ultimately, other translations of the Bible. that being is The Son of Man, aka Jesus. Daniel writes that he returns peaceably, just as the Angel in Acts 1 says, and collects the earth and all it's kingdoms from the Beast and the Ancient of Days, and all who believe in him will rule forever. There is no mention also of a millennial reign or a Gog and Magog war afterwards, like Revelation states. I think most of Revelation is a forgery, just because of that one inconsistency between scriptures. And to say that the Nag Hammadi scriptures were written in the fourth century, first of all, is incorrect. C14 dating puts the dead sea scrolls between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. But that even in itself still doesn't negate the fact that the dead sea scrolls could have very well been a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. So to present the data of carbon dating to attempt to dispute the validity of the Nag Hammadi scriptures, is a weak move.
have you done any the on the library of Alexander?
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life says the Lord. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
Jahannah, you got really good guest, full of knowledge, intellect and a good wit, too. Bring him back! Keep up the good work. Have more of these experts on your channel - it really increases your credentials. You’re ”The Physics Girl” for ancient history. And that’s a good thing.
Utter nonsense…
The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek.
Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation.
Alma: Virgin or Young Woman?
Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example:
If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16).
In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example:
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12).
If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says,
The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.
Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says,
I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…”
Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way:
There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
@@danielshaolin6053 lol It's possible you replied to the wrong poster.
Quetzacoatl = Serpent (serpentarius)
Jesus = Fish (pisces)
Buddha = Lion (leo)
Shiva = elephant (Aries)
Zoroastra = Eagle (Scorpio)
Lao Tzu = Water Buffalo (Taurus)
Next Master = Owl (Aquarius)
how do u find these connections? I'm curious about the sources.
@@kickapowwww History is written by the victors of war. The remnants of information are there but have been twisted to suit the victors and the society they represent. No good or bad it is just the learning of the earth. We are not just based on the five senses, we are all light beings who are starting to remember, there is no one truth, your truth is your own, but if we listen to our inner light, the Akashic vibration is where to look.
Quetzalcoatl was the serpent in the garden of Eden, Jesus Christ is the King of Kings 👑
What happened to Krsna?
@@kilowhiskeyalpha6078 Krishna and Shiva are one and the same.
Imagine a mistranslation of John 4:16 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except THROUGH me." What if THROUGH was mistranslated (probably on purpose) and was instead meant to mean "the same way as me"? That one word's definition changes the entire emphasis of the New Testament from one of supplication to one of self empowerment. Food for thought.
New subscriber. Always liked history and love your channel!
_"...while you find the belief in a real Christ to be non-evidentiary."_
So, provide evidence Jesus existed.
What did pilot have written about Jesus ?? Anyone ? Nothing!!!! Weird huh. Cause we know a lot about Roman rulers
Schaller know that Jesus' true name was Yoshua. The letter J didn't exist until the early 1100's. This leaves us with Yesus which is the Sandscript name for Shiva. Yoshua grew up in Egypt and may have been initiated there. The Dead sea scrolls contained copies of Egyptian temple wall writings. Many these Dead sea scrolls remain untranslated because of there religious controversial subject matter. I have also heard that Yoshua's family traveled through India and even into Tabet. I enjoy learning about these topics.
It's actually "Yeshua" Eng = Joshua. Yeshua in Greek is Lesous, Latin = Lesus & Eng = Jesus. I believe they kept the more Latin name as it stands out against all the other Josh's in the Bible. You're right about the "J" thing. The rest... sounds like the stream of conscientiousness, random word association stuff that one ancient history youtuber goes on about.
As if there aren't enough problems in the world that showcasing why Jesus won't save you should be broadcast for everyone to see. Good work.
wel jesus said it himself youre cross is youre own to bare,i can help you but you have to do the heavy lifting,no man can bare it for you and if they would it just makes you weak.
in other words sort youre own shit out because thats youre responsbility.
@@marcvandermeyden8000 It's incorrect to assess any man made argument against a supreme intelligence that created everything. It's likely true that the best conception we can imagine for this entity/intelligence is a man like Jesus Christ and the story is the best we could possibly imagine for. It is unwise to refute it, unless you have something better to offer, but I digress. There's a reason "Occult" gnosis has been hidden and it is a good one. This girl will eventually concede to the consequences of her actions as many before her have learned/acquired. Once she figures it out for herself.
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.
I wish you had asked him about the word Virgin in the Christian Greek scriptures that is the New Testament. It is my understanding that in the Greek Septuagent which is the Old testment Hebrew and Aramaic text translated to Greek that the prophecy of the Maiden giving birth to the Messiah it doesnt carry the idea of a Virgin Birth but that it was a mistranslation. The Hebrew term meant young woman and when translated to Greek it was wrongly applied as virgin thus we have a virgin Mary!
That's because the septuagint is corrupt. Tell me what you find in the Masoretic text which is the only reliable version.
Virgin Birth
The intentional mistranslation of these virgin birth verses are not in academic dispute. There are abundant scholarly articles about it. The paper trails and sequence of events is well known and understood.
The word used in Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 7:14) is "almah" ("young woman having reached puberty").
The Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, is "bethulah" ("virgin").
The Septuagint is a version of the Old Testament prepared in the 3rd century BC by Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew sciptures into Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish community.
In translating for the Septuagint, "almah" was translated into Greek as "parthenos" ("virgin").
Thus, Isaiah's prophecy in the original Hebrew states that the Messiah would be conceived by an "almah" ("young woman"), whereas the Greek translation in the Septuagint version of Isaiah refers instead to a "parthenos" ("virgin").
So, the Gospel of Matthew (Luke copied Matthew's account, Mark and John do not assert a virgin birth) attempted to justify Jesus' divine parentage by tailoring the story of Jesus' conception to match the fulfilment of a prophecy that was never actually made.
In the entire Christian corpus, the virgin birth is found only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
The Gospel of John (John 1:45) states that Jesus had both father and mother, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth".
The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus' full humanity.
The Gospel of Mark has no birth story and states that Jesus' mother had no belief in her son as having been created by a supernatural being, as if she had forgotten the angel's visit.
None of the Gospels were written by witnesses to Jesus.
Only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke is the virgin birth asserted.
The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on very slender historical foundations. Both Matthew and Luke are late and anonymous compositions dating from the period AD 80-100. The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus's full humanity, stating that he was "born of a woman" like any other human being and "born under the law" like any Jew.
The Gospel of Mark, dating from around AD 70, we read of Jesus saying that "prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house" - Mark 6:4), which suggests that Mark was not aware of any tradition of special circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, and while the author of the gospel of John is confident that Jesus is more than human he makes no reference to a virgin birth to prove his point. John in fact refers twice to Jesus as the "son of Joseph," the first time from the lips of the disciple Philip ("We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth" - John 1:45), the second from the unbelieving Jews ("Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?" - John 6:41).
@@twitherspoon8954 Stick with your academics. Clearly you've been deceived by false prophets. If you cannot see how God was mad at the Jewish leaders/religious types because they chased/killed His prophets, than you haven't read Jeremiah, Isiah and especially Ezekiel. Jesus was pretty much their last test, until the tribulation. Now go read Isiah 53 again and think harder. Come back and tell us what you find.
@@permafrost7781
_"Now go read Isiah 53 again and think."_
You know Jesus is a fictional character, right?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
@@twitherspoon8954 You bought that line.
Excellent. There is also a world full of historical biblical scholars. Get a counterpoint perspective instead of one that is noted as contrary to the main stream thinking. His arguments have been debated and fall into the debatable category.
Yes, there were a few things that are being debated. Carrier, Madison and Pearce are ones I am reading at the moment, and they present a commanding counter view to Dr Ehrman.
ALL arguments fall into the "Debateable" category. It is especially true when you realize men have determined which gospels were included in the modern bible and which were deemed too different to be canon. Everything was designed to fit a narrative.
Thank you, this is very interesting
I just realized... I found this video on April 9th..thats today!. you guys talk about this debate he's doing...today weird. I need to look this up! I love Syncranicuties!!
I recommend you watch the first part of the movie Zeitgeist for context of Christianity vs previous religions. MANY ancient religions had virgin birth, resurrection etc etc.
Yup. And that proves NOTHING. Zeitgeist is interesting. And it is a TOWERING example of confirmation bias. Parallels between religions and mythologies are the rule, not the exception. Read books by Joseph Campbell.
Oh I don't. It's amateur bs easily debunked!
Zeitgeist is full of shit made up in order to spread antisemitic myths invented by the NSDAP.
You should also, then, speak with Dr. Richard Carrier. He disagrees with Dr. Ehrman about Jesus being a man or myth and brings receipts.
The Immaculate Conception is to refer to Mary Mother.
*When one speaks to the subject it is Wise to answer I"I don't know", rather than guess or assume.
I recommend the works of the Late Glen Kimball, audio available from a number of interviews by Coast to Coast Radion, George Noory or his sub-hosts on the ""Regal Beagel Channel"* here on UA-cam.
Also: History:New a Testament Era, (an entire semester of lectures, that one actually enjoys listening to by Yale University's, now retired, but Platinum, *Professor Emeritus, Dale Martin,* "I highly recommend" this series of clear teaching if the History).
_"The Immaculate Conception is to refer to Mary Mother."_
Actually, it was rape-
God raped ("overshadowed") Mary while she was engaged to Joseph and while God was married to Asherah, Aholah and Aholibah (who were sisters). God's sons also "ravished" human females and impregnated them.
God sent one of his representatives to tell Mary, that even though she was engaged to Joseph and frightened by the encounter, that God would impregnate her.
The Bible uses the word "overshadow", which is the Greek word, "επισκιάζω" (episkiazó). Some Christians interpret "overshadow" to mean that some sort of mystical cloud or divine wind hovered over Mary and then she became pregnant. But the literal translation of the word is, "to overshadow, to use influence upon by a looming presence (skiá)" and figuratively means "to invest with preternatural (extraordinary, exceeding what is normal) influence". So, the "overshadowing" was God using what the Bible describes as the "extraordinary" coercion of his greater power and status to dominate and overpower Mary's desires and will by forcing his own desire to force unwanted sexual contact from frightened Mary with the intent of impregnating her.
The word Mary uses to accept the command to be impregnated is "ginomai", which means "let it not be, far be it from, God forbid".
In Mary's praise and thanksgiving to God in Luke 1:48 she says, “God has lifted up his humble maidservant.” The Greek word for “humble” is the same one that the Septuagint (the old Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) uses to describe the rape of Dinah in Genesis and other incidents of sexual violation.
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”-The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44
Who what? A skully!
Should listen to Jordan Peterson’s biblical series…excellent breakdown of the Bible (well some of it).
Yep. It’s utterly fascinating.
Love your videos ❤️
God bless you both
My first reaction to see Bart Ehrman was UGH. Not a fan of this guy. However, after the last 2 years, with ALL the lies spread by the world to include the Christian church, I'm now open to hearing his arguments in a new perspective.
What lies are you referring to relates to Christianity?
Watching this playlist about Jesus is so much better than watching Bart
ua-cam.com/video/d4GWFsON7yo/v-deo.html
@@chadsmith2281 How many Christian churches CLOSED because of the "virus"? Purely insane that they bought and promoted the lies of the entire scamdemic.
This should be interesting. I've always said that the Bible was mistranslated and was inaccurate due to the Roman empire
Yes, read the Torah and Tanakh (Jewish bible). It's not even the same story or same order it's all different lol. They just tried to kill us (jews) and stole our religion and then kept killing us. New Testament is hogwash, literal made up hog wash. Also, the historical Jesus meets zero requirements to be the Jewish messiah in the Old Testament. we (jews) still speak Hebrew and read all original scripts in Hebrew.
Yes, a lot of mistranslations occured and also knowledges were lost. I would suggest to anyone to read the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, the famous Jewish Historian from 100AD (and his other works). People forget that the understandings of the Torah were text, but also oral tradition. This way, you get the oral tradition as it was in 100AD.
As for the New Testament, there were dozens of books that were not included in the Bible. The Nag Hammadi Library that contains most of the Gnostic texts not included is definitely a must read.
@@christianvachon2235 Bart seems to have forgotten about oral tradition as well. Simply dismissing the validity of the Old Testament based on the development of language is not very scholarly. The Jewish people in particular were proficient at codifying their faith through oral traditions, feast days, architectural structures, and clothing and other religious paraphernalia.
@@dschaffin Very true! Oral tradition is very important! I think I mentioned that, but my understandings is that the Jewish traditions was the combination of text and oral tradition. As much as people dismiss Josephus, I find that it adds a commentary to the possible oral of the Torah 2000 years ago before the translations and other things as well. It is suggested that 2000 years ago, the Jewish Faith was separated into 3 sects at the time (Pharisees, Essenes, Saduccees).
@@christianvachon2235 Yes, you did. Jesus would always say, “It is written…” when referring to scripture.
Paul was educated and through his letters we get most of the New Testament. God is uncanny at putting the right person at the right time in history where they are needed most.
I don’t read Greek or Hebrew, but I recognize the need for looking back to the original and not depending upon any one translation. Context is also super important. I think Bart is trying to appease by trying to put scripture in the context of modern times.
Greek is a really robust language with words that carry a ton of meaning. Hebrew is a very graphic language with each stroke having meaning. Our language is neither. I think as a result, there is way more ambiguity in the modern English language. I think Bart tries to ascribe this ambiguity to the Word as well. It doesn’t fit for me.
If the ancient Greeks felt the way they did about male dominance how did Alexander get away with commanding his men to take a lover among his troops because people fight harder for someone they love than for a stranger?
Jahannah you are by far the coolest chick ever, I love your videos, ancient history is so fascinating and as I never went to school (naughty kid) I've learnt so much from you and your content.
Keep it up as you rock 💯 🤠 🤘
What’s with his constant maniacal laughter? I’ve read some of this guy’s books and even listening to him talk I still find him really incoherent. Aside from that, I don’t trust his broad, simplistic generalization of the morals/ values of the entire “ancient world.” That’s covering an awful lot of ground about a very large and diverse population that lived a very long time ago.
Good summary of this shallow man. Men who giggle, or women too for that matter, give me the creeps. That said, at least he doesn’t try to say Jesus never existed. Johanna is a smart girl searching for truth and I hope she finds it. Yes, the Bible is full of human errors. God is real. Figure it out.
@@juliamorganscott9384 I agree on all points👍🏻
@@juliamorganscott9384 life of the party Julia 😐
@@KanyeKetchup *giggle* I usually am. 😜
Virgin birth. 🤔
One night stand drinking wine with happy powder.
Reptiles can have virgin births.
@@ericafiore1624 lol yes indeed. Supposedly Jesus has a number of siblings. Joseph and Mary did the dance to get those, so…. Ok never mind lol
_"Virgin birth."_
The intentional mistranslation of these verses are not in academic dispute. There are abundant scholarly articles about it. The paper trails and sequence of events is well known and understood.
The word used in Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 7:14) is "almah" ("young woman having reached puberty").
The Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, is "bethulah" ("virgin").
The Septuagint is a version of the Old Testament prepared in the 3rd century BC by Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew sciptures into Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish community.
In translating for the Septuagint, "almah" was translated into Greek as "parthenos" ("virgin").
Thus, Isaiah's prophecy in the original Hebrew states that the Messiah would be conceived by an "almah" ("young woman"), whereas the Greek translation in the Septuagint version of Isaiah refers instead to a "parthenos" ("virgin").
So, the Gospel of Matthew (Luke copied Matthew's account, Mark and John do not assert a virgin birth) attempted to justify Jesus' divine parentage by tailoring the story of Jesus' conception to match the fulfilment of a prophecy that was never actually made.
In the entire Christian corpus, the virgin birth is found only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
The Gospel of John (John 1:45) states that Jesus had both father and mother, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth".
The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus' full humanity.
The Gospel of Mark has no birth story and states that Jesus' mother had no belief in her son as having been created by a supernatural being, as if she had forgotten the angel's visit.
None of the Gospels were written by witnesses to Jesus.
Only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke is the virgin birth asserted.
The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on very slender historical foundations. Both Matthew and Luke are late and anonymous compositions dating from the period AD 80-100. The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus's full humanity, stating that he was "born of a woman" like any other human being and "born under the law" like any Jew.
The Gospel of Mark, dating from around AD 70, we read of Jesus saying that "prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house" - Mark 6:4), which suggests that Mark was not aware of any tradition of special circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth, and while the author of the gospel of John is confident that Jesus is more than human he makes no reference to a virgin birth to prove his point. John in fact refers twice to Jesus as the "son of Joseph," the first time from the lips of the disciple Philip ("We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth" - John 1:45), the second from the unbelieving Jews ("Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose mother and father we know?" - John 6:41).
@@Mistertwist.
_"Supposedly Jesus has a number of siblings."_
Four brothers and at least one sister.
I think there is a reason I found you... i watched your other Atlantis ring video and now this one. you seem like you have the right mind set. I have had a life time of experiences that can only be explained as super natural. I talked to you about the Cumberland thing before, but didn't tell you about how I am... this video hit head on. you know some people are born with special abilities, like your friend...mine are like way crazier though... I have had dreams about some really crazy things that have come true.. 2011 tornado out break I dreamed about it... Covid, I dreamed about it...the never ending hurricanes and storms... the lights in the sky, and even the on going missle problem. I would love to talk to you.
I was born with what. most would call third eye, or what ever you might call it.. I can see things, all these things that are happening I saw when I did a meditation in a cave, and have dreamed about ever since... I list 11 hours in this cave thinking I was in meditation for 1 hour...i saw a movie like thing in my head...it was about the past all the way to the future.... it's crazy I know... but it's true... I do have witnessed to some of my claims..ive been married for 31 years, and she can tell you I'm legit.
this being said being said I am going out on a limb telling you all of this stuff, but I can show you other alignments in ancient history, I've been shown some crazy things that all are coming to a head in our future. I do not care what any one says... you are dead on in your thinking.
thank you!
Great interview. Have you also looked at Barbara Therings dead sea scrolls doco?
Great interview!!! Thank you! The biggest argument for the resurrection is the Shroud of Turin. It is in 3D (we know that Jesus actually looked like post-beating and crucifixion. But, also, the way the image was left on the Shroud suggests exposure to intense light and heat (radiation).
No.
*Conclusion*
So, here’s the evidence I have presented for why the Shroud of Turin is clearly a hoax:
- We have no reliable documentation of the Shroud of Turin’s existence until the fourteenth century.
- The forger who made the Shroud of Turin confessed and the earliest definitive mention of the shroud in any historical source is a record of his confession.
- The Shroud of Turin doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings used in Judaea in the time of Jesus or the description of Jesus’s own funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John.
- The linen of the Shroud of Turin has been securely dated using radiocarbon dating to between c. 1260 and c. 1390 AD-well over a millennium after Jesus’s death.
- The figure on the Shroud of Turin does not have anatomically correct proportions and much more closely resembles figures in fourteenth-century Gothic art than a real human being.
- The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are not consistent with how blood actually flows naturally and they instead appear to have been painted on.
- The fabric of the Shroud of Turin is made with a kind of weave that is known to have been commonly used during the Late Middle Ages, but does not seem to have been used for burial shrouds in Judaea in the first century AD.
All the evidence points to the inexorable conclusion that the Shroud of Turin is a late medieval hoax.
Google *"The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten"*
@@LM-jz9vh Here is some questions/comments?
- Do you have a document with the forger's confession?
- Jesus was buried quickly, but there was also preparations made for what might be the resurrection, including the use of aloe, etc. to preserve the flesh. Jesus was Essene Jew and most of that community didn't live in Judea.
- They recently did a cast/statue based on the 3D findings from the Shroud by computer. Studies revealed that it was a 3 dimensional image (done by computer) - had to be done on a live body, not painted. During this process, it was revealed that Jesus had severe wounds, including 600 cuts from lashings, as well as broken cheekbones. That is hard to fake.
- The blood stains depends on when the injuries were sustained prior to burial.
- The samples initially taken from the Shroud were done quickly. There is some repair from an earlier fire in the medieval era. The testing was never redone.
The thing is that recent computer analysis revealed it to be a 3D image of a body, with correct feature (and distortions from heavy beating it seems), which would be impossible to fake or paint in the medieval era.
Wiki: "In 1988, radiocarbon dating established that the shroud was from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390. All hypotheses put forward to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted, including the medieval repair hypothesis, the bio-contamination hypothesis and the carbon monoxide hypothesis."
"In 1390 Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII (Avignon Obedience) stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed."
There are dozens of Shroud replicas out there and UA-cam videos demonstrating how to make them.
It's astonishing that some actually believe we cannot make a pigment-infused piece of linen.
Here's a scientist who made one-
"Luigi Garlaschelli created a copy of the shroud by wrapping a specially woven cloth over one of his students, painting it with pigment, baking it in an oven (which he called a "shroud machine") for several hours, then washing it."
@@twitherspoon8954 It is possible. The problem is that the 3D images reveal features of someone with severe physical abuse from beating (broken cheekbones, etc.). That would be hard to artificially reproduce from painting. Also, the placement of the nails is correct from Roman crucifixion practices unlike other representations of the time.
Jesus' body was anointed with myrrh and aloe which would match the coloring in the cloth - orange reddish tint.
I don't see why it might not be authentic. That it appeared in Europe at the time of the Crusades doesn't mean it wasn't existent beforehand.
@@christianvachon2235
_"Jesus' body was anointed with..."_
Provide evidence Jesus existed.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
_"That it appeared in Europe at the time of the Crusades doesn't mean it wasn't existent beforehand."_
Try familiarizing yourself with the science on the subject-
INVESTIGATING A DATED PIECE OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN RADIOCARBON
Vol 52, Nr 4, 2010, p 1521-1527
Rachel A Freer-Waters
The study asserting there were serum lines around the blood stains of the shroud was retracted.
It is stamped at the title line in large, bold, red, capitalized text, "RETRACTED" with the explanation provided by the editorial board that is was due to bad science.
Further, that study even acknowledged forgery was involved in the artifact.
Re: Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud
Elvio Carlino ,Liberato De Caro,Cinzia Giannini,Giulio Fanti
Published: June 30, 2017
Here it is; The Greek translation, the Septuagint, rendered the word almah, meaning a young woman of childbearing age who had not yet given birth, as parthenos,which means virgin; Isaiah 7:14 and therefore did not know that it mistranslated the Hebrew word ‘almāh as virgin instead of “young woman.” On the basis of this mistranslation, Gospel writers came up with the idea that Jesus’ mother, in order to fulfill the prediction of Isaiah 7:14, needed to be a virgin-and so simply made it up.
😂
Utter nonsense…
The translators of the LXX were Hebrews who spoke Greek.
Seeing as the LXX translators spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and understood their own scriptures/theology better than the likes of Ehrman - It’s a safe bet that the LXX translators produced a faithful translation.
Alma: Virgin or Young Woman?
Is Isaiah really speaking of a virgin conception? It is often argued that if Isaiah meant “virgin,” he would have used the Hebrew word betula (בְּתוּלָ֕ה). The word betula occurs 50x in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does clearly refer to a virgin, for example:
If a man seduces a [betula] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for [betulot, plural] (Exodus 22:16).
In this and similar examples, betula clearly refers to a virgin, but the context tells us this as much as the word itself, and “virgin” is not necessarily the essential meaning of the word. In fact, it seems not to be, since in a few cases the virgin-status of the betula is further spelled-out, for example:
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young [betulot, plural] who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan (Judges 21:12).
If betula by itself means “virgin” the clause “who had not known a man by lying with him” here seems redundant. But a more telling and illuminating case occurs in Genesis 24, because both betula and alma are used, and so more direct comparison is possible. Abraham’s servant has gone to find a wife for Isaac, and while sitting at a well he sees Rebekah. Genesis 24:16 says,
The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a [betula] whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.
Here again, the word betula by itself does not seem to be enough to indicate virginity, since the narrator specifies that no man had known her. But further down in the chapter, in vv. 42-43, when the servant is recounting the story to Rebekah’s family, he says,
I came today to the spring and said, ‘Yahweh, the God of my master Abraham, if now you are prospering the way that I go, behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the [alma] who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink…”
Here alma seems to assume the virgin condition that betula does not. It is a summary term for Rebekah’s status. Alma is a less common word, occurring only 9x in the Old Testament, and granted, in a few of those cases the context gives no clue one way or the other whether a virgin is in view (e.g., “The singers in front, the musicians last, between them [almot, plural] playing tambourines” - Psalm 68:25). But when the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines. One scholar, Alec Motyer, sums up this linguistic evidence this way:
There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used betula. Alma lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact, this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.
@@danielshaolin6053 Nice! Good info you pasted.. It still would have been nice to hear him give an explanation and his view since he is a scholar...
Look into Arius Calpurnius Piso and his many pen names. Him and his family are the greatest stealth editors in history. He re-wrote Aristotle, and invented Flavious Josephus. Arius coordinated the authorship of the New Testament (using existing apocryphal texts) and used his own likeness to propagate the modern depiction of Jesus in art, His son Julius Piso, in a classic example of rebellion, used his shot at writing "Revelations" to call him out as satan.
Another fantastic video 👏👏👏
He’s wrong about that virgin line, Egypt practiced this as well as Persia and think the Sumerians were the first to talk about a virgin birth. Where’d get this guy smh 🤦♂️
numbers 12:4 At once the Lord said to Moses, Aaron and Miriam, “Come out to the tent of meeting, all three of you.” So the three of them went out.
5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam.
When the two of them stepped forward,
6 he said, “Listen to my words:
“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7
But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8
With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”
9 The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them.
10 When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous[a]-it became as white as snow.
Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,
11 and he said to Moses, “Please, my lord, I ask you not to hold against us the sin we have so foolishly committed.
12 Do not let her be like a stillborn infant coming from its mother’s womb with its flesh half eaten away.”
13 So Moses cried out to the Lord, “Please, God, heal her!”
14 The Lord replied to Moses, “If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days?
Confine her outside the camp for seven days; after that she can be brought back.”
15 So Miriam was confined outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on till she was brought back.
I think you should enter Miss Translations into the next Miss World contest.
Jahhana is Thoth Good or bad? I am so confused
I LOVE LOVE your work Indihanna James. That being said, I'm making my smoothie and listening and watching this video and all I can hear is Bart saying "blah blah, I know it all, blah blah blah, I was there at that time in all ancient history and I saw it all, blah blah, you're all wrong, blah blah." I'm not saying that he made a few good points and I've got to give him that. However, I'm not a "hardcore" anything on the front of Christianity, Methodist, Protestant, Catholic (and I was raised the ol' Roman Catholicism-they spoke only Latin in service🤔) or any of that type of religion. Many of the words in red in the King James Bible J.C. states a great disdain for religion as well as saying "I am not from this world". I'm just spiritual in general but it's really hard to listen to this guy and I have not found one video that I didn't absolutely adore by you! ...but this guy. 🧐 I guess he was alive and saw with his own eyes all of this at the time that he is saying "this didn't happen", "everyone is wrong but me", "that didn't happen, I know cuz I know. I know just cuz I know." I think you can find him on channel Bart knows all about everything if you'd like to take a watch. 😆 On to lighter things, Jo I love you 🤗🌹and thank you for all your enlightening and unbiased work! 💚🌍💙
No PROVEN SOURCES!
When he says forged texts is he referring to the lost books that came out of deciphering the dead sea scrolls?
The Kolbrin Bible is called a forgery. It will spin your head right round baby right round.
Great name Bart, 👍
The lesson in this video is to Not be a homesexual. 👌🏾
Actually all ancient myths are based on the stores of the Bible. Before the Bible was written down, God interacted with mankind since the beginning. People deviated from worshiping Elohim and created their own gods and fallen Angles and adapted the original stories to fit their new religions. Most of the ancient technologies you talk about in your videos are examples of the fallen Angles interacting with early man. The structures that are buried and have older carbon dated material close to there base structure, are what was buried by Noah's flood. The Earth was over populated and had advanced technologies before the great flood wiped the earth clean.
this is a deep and cool convo ty
I pretend to believe in all religions and also atheism and agnostics, but I dont believe in beliefs , neither in myself 😁its extremely comfortable.
Jesus Christ existed and this is one way to be Salvation.
_"Jesus Christ existed..."_
So, provide evidence Jesus existed.
@@twitherspoon8954 sorry HE is still exist but in Heaven . If you are looking for proof of it you can find them in the Bible and many many historical books .
@@twitherspoon8954 He was a God who became a man.
@@marcinwojtowicz2417
_"If you are looking for proof of it you can find them in the Bible and many many historical books."_
So, provide evidence Jesus existed.
None of the Bible authors witnessed Jesus so how would the Bible be evidence Jesus existed?
@@twitherspoon8954 Bible is one of the best proof. IVEN PANIN For instante . If you real want to find you will.
*Which ancient civilization created the Twin Towers, before Osama bin Laden destroyed them?*
Question for you and dr. bart did jesus not raise lazerus from several days of death and then a child he also gets credit for so why wouldn't that be a prelude for his own? Not completely buying this one miracles do happen.
Cool video Jahanna, interesting subject. After interviewing Bart it might be worth you speaking to/interviewing Dr Richard Carrier for a slightly different perspective :)
Johanna could converse on the topic of Milk Bottle Tops and I would still be absolutely entertained, she is wonderful, full of intrigue. I think it is so important to appreciate the contextual implications of Religion and History. Cool show
You could reasonably discuss the factual origins of the Bible, the varying supportive texts, and even draw a comparison between origin stories without mocking, laughing, and ridiculing. Bart Ehrman is just an atheist with the dogma of an atheist. Atheism is as much a religion as any other. He interprets the New Testament through that lens. He assigns motives to the text for which he has zero supporting evidence.
There is a reason that all origin stories are similar. The fact that written origin stories might precede the origin stories of the Bible is due to the development of written language. 🙄 His premises and teachings are ridiculous.
Your foray into Bible “interpretation” with an atheist was a complete failure.
Jesus is a fictional character.
@N RJ
If you have evidence Jesus existed, provide it.
@N RJ
_"History."_
So, again... provide evidence Jesus existed.
According to the Bible, a star appeared in the sky leading to the birthplace of the prophesied messiah;
Jesus was recognized at birth as the prophesied messiah;
A "multitude" of angels came down from heaven and told "everyone" that god was born and "everyone heard it";
Distinguished foreigners (maji) traveled to bear the infant god gifts, guided by a star;
King Herod killed all the male infants in the region in order to eliminate the baby god;
Jesus traveled the region for thirty years; his fame “went throughout all Syria” and he and his entourage were followed by “great multitudes”;
Jesus performed 36 miracles, including calming a storm, walking on water and through walls, and raising three people from the dead;
Whichever city Jesus went to, everyone who touched his clothes were healed, including the blind and the paralyzed;
He was tried by the Sanhedrin High Court, the High Priest, Roman governor Pontius Pilate, and King Herod Antipas;
Jesus had a very public execution from which he later became undead and his corpse disappeared from a secured tomb;
After Jesus became undead, he made 12 appearances to more than 500 persons;
After his resurrection, all of the graves opened and the corpses rose out and walked into town and "appeared to many".
Yet, there was no contemporaneous memorialization and/or corroboration of any of that, in any way.
In the entire first century Jesus is not mentioned by a single historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, carving, sculpture or monument, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence or official record.
The only Bible author who claimed to have met Jesus described him only as a bright light. None of the Gospel writers were witnesses to Jesus. Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, tombs, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.
Wouldn't you think if a baby was recognized as God at birth, and met dignitaries, and this God was walking around town for thirty years, performing 36 miracles and raising the dead, and was publicly executed and then his body disappeared from a secure tomb, and then the graves opened and the corpses rose out and walked into town, and the sun went dark for three hours, that someone at the time would have noticed and memorialized it in some way?
@N RJ
_"You want the DNA formula or what evidence do you require?"_
Yeah.
Provide a scholarly source for Jesus' DNA.
LOL
@N RJ
_"He died on your cross making a choice."_
Nope.
He was a human sacrifice.
I condemn ritual human sacrifice, rape, and cannibalism; Christians literally worship them.
Ritual Human Sacrifice-
God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a human sacrifice (a practice adopted from Paganism)-
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son."
1 John 4:10
"This is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
Romans 8:32
"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all."
1 Corinthians 5:7
"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
Romans 3:25
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement."
Philippians 2:8
"Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross."
Galatians 1:4
"Christ obeyed God our Father and gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins to rescue us from this evil world."
Romans 5:8
"But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners."
Hebrews 10:10
"We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Rape-
God raped ("overshadowed") Mary while she was engaged to Joseph and while God was married to Asherah, Aholah and Aholibah (who were sisters). God's sons also "ravished" human females and impregnated them.
God sent one of his representatives to tell Mary, that even though she was engaged to Joseph and frightened by the encounter, that God would impregnate her.
The Bible uses the word "overshadow", which is the Greek word, "επισκιάζω" (episkiazó). Some Christians interpret "overshadow" to mean that some sort of mystical cloud or divine wind hovered over Mary and then she became pregnant. But the literal translation of the word is, "to overshadow, to use influence upon by a looming presence (skiá)" and figuratively means "to invest with preternatural (extraordinary, exceeding what is normal) influence". So, the "overshadowing" was God using what the Bible describes as the "extraordinary" coercion of his greater power and status to dominate and overpower Mary's desires and will by forcing his own desire to force unwanted sexual contact from frightened Mary with the intent of impregnating her.
The word Mary uses to accept the command to be impregnated is "ginomai", which means "let it not be, far be it from, God forbid".
In Mary's praise and thanksgiving to God in Luke 1:48 she says, “God has lifted up his humble maidservant.” The Greek word for “humble” is the same one that the Septuagint (the old Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) uses to describe the rape of Dinah in Genesis and other incidents of sexual violation.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Cannibalism is an integral part of Christianity-
John 6:53
"Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a difficult and harsh and offensive statement. Who can accept it?" From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
@N RJ
_"History."_
The Jesus story began in 48 AD with the first of the Pauline Epistles (which comprise nearly half of the New Testament books) when Paul realized the Daniel 9:25 prophesy of a messiah failed to fulfill on time, so he made one up decades after the date for the prophesied fulfillment but he set the story decades in the past to make the prophesy seem true.
The fulfillment of the Daniel 9:25 prophecy written in 538 BC was the test of the true messiah. By 48 AD it was known that the prophecy of a messiah coming in "seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" had not occurred on the prophesied date. "Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" is, 7 plus 60 plus 2 equals 69 total weeks. One prophetic week equals seven years, so 7 times 69 equals 483 total years beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458 BC.
Paul made up the entire Jesus story and added historical figures, locations, and events to add authenticity.
Paul's goal was to garner support for the war against the Romans.
He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah (literal son of God).
He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' war against the Romans.
Instead, he created one of the world's most popular religions that is based on the literal worship of ritual human sacrifice, rape, and cannibalism.
The Gospel authors copied, and embellished, Paul's fiction.
None of the Gospel authors, or any other writers, were witnesses to the Bible figure known as Jesus.
You should look into Archeo-Acoustiscs. It's a newer field in which they're discovered that by using sounds they become able to use low hertz sounds to lift stone blocks many times their own weight. There seems to be good evidence that Stonehenge was built using sound and/or acoustics. It's fascinating.
My heart, she’s so cute. ☺️