You are my go to channel. I wish you had more time to put out videos. As I have said, you give a clear outside vie w of issues assembly stamped into PhD students memory.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment
@davidmthorley
5 жыл бұрын
I really appreciate the level of research and knowledge that goes into these videos. It’s hard to find information on this subject that isn’t trying to convince you one way or the other. I love the fact you present both sides of the argument in a rational, clear and easy to follow way. Thank you - subscribed
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment!
@NZCombatTV
5 жыл бұрын
Fishers of Evidence, What are your thoughts on certain parts of Marks Gospel resembling Homers "Odyssey" and is it worth your time looking into this question?
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
I'm familiar with this claim but haven't studied it in detail. There are some parallels between Odysseus and Jesus. Both were carpenters, both are surrounded by stupid people who didn't understand their poetic purpose and both had a desire to return home. But I don't think these parallels alone are enough to establish that link and they do appear to be all there is. I'm not aware of any other circumstantial evidence that links Mark to Homer other than the assertion that anyone who knew Greek at that time, as Mark must have, would have studied Homer as part of their curriculum.
@NZCombatTV
5 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 There are a number of very close comparisons between the stories. I think rather than go through them I will point you towards Dennis R MacDonald's book "The Homeric Epics and The Gospel of Mark"
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
@@NZCombatTV Fair enough. I'll take a look at it.
@p.bamygdala2139
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for another intriguing video! And I'm early enough to comment 2nd! I'd like to offer a compliment: I am subscribed to something in the range of 300 different KZitem channels, but there is only ONE channel that I have notifications turned on... this channel. Thank you for your continued service! I definitely need to start reading some more in-depth scholarly work about the gospel attributed to Mark, including full books. There's so much to learn! My new pet hypothesis this week: What if the Mark gospel was someone's ancient attempt at archaeology? What if they were working with bits and pieces, shreds, rumors, fragments, and trying to recreate a fluid narrative of the Jesus story otherwise passed along aurally? Perhaps the Mark author didn't have all the context for Ben Ananus at his disposal, at the time. Perhaps he was trying to rebuild from memory. Maybe there had been a fire destroying some details. Maybe he was in a hurry. Perhaps Mark's gospel was a 2nd century historian trying to assemble his own "Book of Q" to account for the gaps, the various conflicting, contradictory, and disparate sources of a Jesus character... Oh, the irony.... I wish I had a big chart / map of all the pieces of the various gospels and their estimated writing dates, set against a map of when every church father lived and worked and against every major event in the region, to try to see all the overlap at once. And I'm still hung up on 2 Corinthians, Paul dealing with Aratus the King of Damascus, the Nabatean leader who ruled circa 100 B.C.E. (III) or who ruled near but not in Syria (IV) until 40 C.E. I welcome more thoughts and insights! Thanks again!
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment. I found it screened by KZitem for some inexplicable reason, hence the delay in replying. The scenario you outline for the production of The Gospel of Mark is very close to the mainstream view which is that Mark was committed to paper by an early educated Greek speaking Christian and that his writing of it was precipitated by the failure of Jesus to return within the lifetime of most of those who had known him, and therefore the necessity to revise the believers eschatological time frame into the future and therefore to make some provision for posterity. And that whoever the author was, they did as you describe, trying to figure out their best guess at what actually happened from fragmentary oral and possibly written traditions. And that they didn't have Josephus' war of the Jews in front of them but did have other accounts that originated in the same story. Your second century dating is would be a minority position but not an extreme one. I've done a video on the dating of Mark and the hard dating, that is the date range between the last historical events he's aware of and the first time he's cited by someone else, ranges from about the 30s to the 180s A.D. The more precise dating around the 70s is based on softer evidence regarding apparent awareness of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. and a comment about "this generation will not pass away before these things are fulfilled". Both of these rely on a literal interpretation of the tax which , of course, is widely contested. Regarding Aretas mentioned in 2 Corinthians. My understanding is this that this is consistent with Aretas IV who, as you say, reigned up to 40 CE. I haven't studied this in detail but my cursory understanding is that he was the ruler of Damascus at least for some of his reign.
@saeed319
5 жыл бұрын
Brilliant video. Do wish you produce many more videos on church fathers, councils, creeds etc. Explaining each in clear, simple English. I do think their is a severe lack of such knowledge online.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment. I started off focusing on the question of whether Jesus existed or not but there's obviously a very large overlap with early church history. I have put all my videos so far in a did Jesus exist playlist but I've also started an early history playlist where I will develop such topics that are less directly relevant to the historicity of Jesus.
@JasonSumner
3 жыл бұрын
This is good stuff. I think that you have inspired me to look into this a bit more....
@NZCombatTV
5 жыл бұрын
Just a thought...Having noted the many parallels between Marks gospel and several other writers of the time as well as understanding that plagiarism was ripe in that era, one needs to question the estimated year that many believe that Marks gospel was actually written. Allowing for Josephus "war of the Jews" (75ce) time to be copied by hand and distributed so that others could read it I would say that Marks gospel could not have been written prior to the 80's. Knowing that Mathew and Luke both copied from Mark and once again allowing time of Marks gospel to be hand copied and distributed for reading we would see the time line for these gospels being pushed further in to the future allowing more time for this mythical story to take shape to satisfy what would be a growing Christian community thus the myth grows, as seen in John's gospel. A myth / prophesy taken from the Hebrews and embellished to fit a Jewish religious upgrade. The arrival and death of the much needed Messiah as prophesied to give hope to those being exterminated by the Romans...Your thoughts.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
All dating schemes for Mark are a bit strained in that the "this generation shall not pass before these things come about" reference sits most comfortably with the a date of writing in the 40s or 50s and is becoming strained by the 70s and markedly strained thereafter. On the other hand the "not one stone shall be laid on another" prophecy clearly fits most closely with a post 70 date and anything borrowed from the Jewish War by Josephus could have been written pretty shortly after Joseph has published his work, particularly if Mark was writing in Rome as tradition has it he was. Pushing it forward to the 80s virtually contradicts the "this generation" thing. If that argument is to be discounted there's nothing to stop you pushing the date forward further to the second century.
@spawnofchaos9422
5 жыл бұрын
What about the parallels between Jesus and Carabbas,who is found in the work of Philo of Alexandria.When Herod of Aggripa became king,he went to Alexandria were anti-jewish party started mocking him.They took Carabbas and dressed him up like a king,then they putted on his head a crown made of papyrus and acted as he was the king until they started to shout:Hail to Maris(which means king in syrian).The story of the mocking of Jesus has similarities.The romans dressed up Jesus like a king and started to shout:before they started to hit him and spit on him.
@pulsarstargrave256
5 жыл бұрын
The writers of the Gospels seemed to have been shameless plagiarists, borrowing from the stories of Moses, Elijah, the psalms in addition to Josephus! I don't find it coincidental that the Gospel of Mark is generally considered to have been written around 70 to 80 CE while Josephus "Jewish War" was published in 75 CE, right smack in the middle! I contend Jesus Ben Ananias was split into two figures in Mark's Gospel: "Jesus Christ" which referenced Paul's writings and "Jesus Barabbas" the revolutionary who was set free! "Barabbas" and "Carabbas" sure sound similar! Hmmm...
@spawnofchaos9422
5 жыл бұрын
@@pulsarstargrave256 The jewish people had a ritual of Yom Kippur(i don't know if i spelled it right).This ritual consists of free a lamb who will carry Israel's sins out in the desert while a pure lamb will be sacrificied in order for Israel to receive forgiveness.You can see the parallells between the ritual and the story of Jesus and Barabas.So this story is not about making a historical jesus while using a historical character,it is about proving that Jesus is the lamb of god and that he will grant us salvation.
@willempasterkamp862
5 жыл бұрын
@@spawnofchaos9422 Cleary Mark and Josephus knew and commented/used each others work. Where Mark creates the passion of a martyr, Josephus brings it down to a wicked man. It plays in Rome but both writers use the cover-up, using backdating (31 year) and replacing tools as ancient scolars. It was not intended for the genaral public but a select audience to taste the finesses of the chocolate.
@paladinheadquarters7776
4 жыл бұрын
Willem Pasterkamp source?
@patricktilton5377
5 жыл бұрын
Joseph Atwill, in his book CAESAR'S MESSIAH, has a great deal to say about this Jesus parallel in Josephus.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Yes he did, and I'm not saying he is wrong, but he did rather over egg it!
@danielbfree2455
3 жыл бұрын
@current_interest So after further observation, do you feel like he is right.? I too, am looking into atwil's theory. It is a year after your comment here on this channel referring to caesar's Messiah and I too feel it plausible due to the fact how much lines up with Josephus writing and the NT. This info I've hyst come into the know recently. Please enlighten me if there are other sources that contradict or compliment what is now being observed. Is the historicity of jesus Romanized? I patiently await your response. Thanks
@TheTom5150
4 жыл бұрын
Doesn’t Joespehus tell of another story where he saw three of his old friends being crucified. Joesphus then approached Titus and told Titus that those guys were his friends so Titus ordered the men to be taken down and cared for. Two of the three men died and the third recovered. Could Mark simply have swapped this story into place as he was writing his narrative?
@fishersofevidence8771
4 жыл бұрын
Josephus does recount that he saw these three companions of his being crucified and tearfully asked Titus to release them, which he did, and they were attended to by doctors, but two died. It is however a very brief mention. Crucifixion was very widespread at the time when Josephus was observing the closing stages of the Judeo Roman war, when thousands of Jews were crucified. While it's possible that either Mark himself observed the same events or else got the story from eye witnesses who had returned from the war to Rome, I don't think there are enough specifics in the gospel accounts to link it positively to this event in Josephus. Ananus has many more parallels, but he does lack the crucifixion motif. However precedents for that motif were everywhere around Mark.
@Dreammaster695
3 жыл бұрын
It amazes me you people care of this joshpus guy so much, what proof is there he existed compared to Jesus?
@charleslorenzodavis3387
Жыл бұрын
Josephus Ben Mathias vs Joseph Ben Mathias. Joseph Ben Mathias made the request in the New Testament. 😮
@Doriesep6622
5 жыл бұрын
That was such an interesting story. "ditty"
@Itsatz0
5 жыл бұрын
Another admirable synopsis. When will it become accepted history that the New T writers had a copy of Josephus next to them as they fabricated their manipulative fiction?
@christianlaraque2234
5 жыл бұрын
itsatz tons of Josephus in the nt. I think most people glance over it but don’t read him to see the similarities
@Itsatz0
5 жыл бұрын
@@christianlaraque2234 You know, a lot of scholars poo-poo Atwill's theory that the Flavians wrote the gospels. But Josephus was a member of Titus' court and he's all over the gospels. The time frame fits. He doesn't reference Jesus Christ anywhere, so I assume if he did conspire to write the gospels, or have them written, he wrote his histories before then. Maybe he didn't mention a historical Jesus as a way to cover his tracks and disassociate the Flavians from the fabrication. (The Jews would know he was a traitor) After all he considered Vespasian to be a Messiah.
@Doriesep6622
5 жыл бұрын
@@Itsatz0 Interesting. But why didn't Josephus mention all the zombies hopping out of their graves during Resurrection? LOL
@Itsatz0
5 жыл бұрын
@danieljliversLXXXIX I assume you are talking about Atwill. How do you explain Josephus being used as a reference in the Gospels?
@Itsatz0
5 жыл бұрын
@danieljliversLXXXIX Atwill is a joke, but his assumption that Josephus had a hand in the creation of the New T is not. www.josephus.org/ntparallels.htm
@monkeyon777
6 ай бұрын
The siege engine does resemble a crucifix when viewed from above.
@theMOCmaster
4 ай бұрын
I come back to thinking about this passage and does it undermine historicity/favor mythicism? The very existence of a possible candidate for the supposed apocalyptic preacher named Jesus, with at least one recorded historical action in common, predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, that seems like the kind of minimal historical Jesus that your average Bible skeptic or critical scholar talks about. The rest was always supposed to be legendary development, if you don’t come at the story from a faith angle.
@NeptunesLagoon
2 жыл бұрын
simply look up Flavian signature for the connection of the " stones that cry out" in the bible, the connections to Josephus, and the catapult stone... and the woe to israel, tho there is more to this and the connections to Judas, who was a religious zealot of the time, or Thomas dsydamus which is the twin brother of Jesus ( doubting Thomas) or that Armageddon had already happened, just as Jesus said at the mount of olives said when he told his followers that it would pass during their lifetime( not to people reading it now... smh), a generation is 40 years biblically... 33ad plus 40 is 73ad... Oops! so... what are we waiting for...? something that happened long before the book was written to happen, again?
@scottpreston3892
5 жыл бұрын
Your list of parallels with Mark leaves out some significant items, such as both Jesuses being called demon possessed, both pronouncing woe unto the Judaeans, and both dying with a loud cry.
@fishersofevidence8771
4 жыл бұрын
Jesus was called possessed by Beelzebul in Mark, but, Ananus was only mad, not demon possessed in Josephus. Jesus did not pronounce woe unto the Judeans in Mark, which I'm restricting it to. They did both die with a loud cry, and there is some judgment as to what parallels are and are not included. You could argue that that is a more valid parallel than they both went to Jerusalem during religious festivals. Up to 30 parallels have been claimed. The more extreme ones are contrived but there is a grey area in between.
@scottpreston3892
4 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 Jesus ben Ananus is thought “under the control of some demonic power” (δαιμονιώτερον). Mark's Jesus “casts out the demons by the ruler of demons” (ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια). Jesus does pronounce woes in Mark 13:17. I suggest you get your hands on a copy of Theodore Weeden, "The Two Jesuses" Forum (2003), that is the authoritative scholarly source on this.
@kierondillon4458
2 жыл бұрын
That it! I'm changing my name to BANNANAS! Lol
@watermelonlalala
4 жыл бұрын
Josephus changed the ending to protect the guilty.
@fishersofevidence8771
4 жыл бұрын
Who killed him then?
@watermelonlalala
4 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 If he is talking about Jesus of Nazareth, Pilate washed his hands, etc.
@fishersofevidence8771
4 жыл бұрын
@@watermelonlalala You mean Josephus changed the end of Jesus Ananus from crucifixion to artillery round?
@paladinheadquarters7776
4 жыл бұрын
Brendan Hall Jesus Ben Ananias is not Jesus of Nazareth, you have got them both confused!
@watermelonlalala
4 жыл бұрын
@@paladinheadquarters7776 Not me. The person who made the video said they were the same.
@theMOCmaster
5 жыл бұрын
'Gave up the ghost'... It's obvious Mark or an interpolator has Josephus in front of him while creating the gospel.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Certainly a strong possibility. The bar for "obvious" is high though.
@paladinheadquarters7776
4 жыл бұрын
theMOCmaster I disagree, I think it’s just a term used to say his soul/spirit left his body.
@Dreammaster695
3 жыл бұрын
A common phrase at the time
@francisgruber3638
4 жыл бұрын
The plausible idea that Josephus was aware of strands of the Marcan tradition is dismissed here without much explanation; but both Mark and Josephus are wrestling with the moral causes consequences of the Temple's destruction. And both are mining the available sources on the subject; Josephus having more resources than Mark. Both are operating in Judea and Rome, with Levitical and Roman civil officials, at the same time. (The most obvious parallel, by the way, is the scourging of both Jesus figures). Preterists point out: As is the case in the original Hebrew of Job 41:28, arrows are sometimes literally called “sons of the bow.” Thus the when the Jewish rebels yelled, “The son cometh,” this expression refers to the boulders launched by Roman catapults as the sons of the catapult. That having been said, it may also be an unintentional warning that Jesus, the Son of God, was presently coming on the clouds in judgment during the Roman siege of Jerusalem... This aligns with Josephus, based upon a phonetic likeness of stone and son in Aramaic: Accordingly the watchmen [of Jerusalem during the Roman siege of A.D. 70] that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine [catapult] was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud in their own country language, “THE SON COMETH.” (Josephus The Wars of the Jews 5.6.3. And see Mark 13:26f, which places the coming of the Son in the Temple's judgment in the prophecy about the four winds, associated with the latter Jesus: “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. revelationrevolution.org/revelation-11-a-preterist-commentary-who-are-the-two-witnesses/ revelationrevolution.org/coming-christ-d-70-like-youve-never-heard/
@fishersofevidence8771
4 жыл бұрын
You make a fair point that commonalities between Mark and Josephus may well be due to them them both using the same third party sources. My dismissal was not of that, but rather of the idea that the commonality was due to Josephus actually using Mark rinherently
@weknowthetruth6863
Жыл бұрын
Or the REAL explanation. Josephus wrote about Jesus Ben Ananias. Mark began reading Josephus and thought Jesus would make a cool storybook character and wrote a fake narrative on him with influence from Homer
@francisgruber3638
Жыл бұрын
@@weknowthetruth6863 :-) lovely.
@sduck5744
3 жыл бұрын
There are other Jeaus’ to look in to.
@rursus8354
5 жыл бұрын
Parallel #2, #5 and #8 are necessary by the context, if we are in Judea, then the probabilitites for all of these are near 100%, i.e. they don't contribute to the "coincidence factor." For the rest: the Jesus Ben Ananus argument only supports mythicism by a small probability weight factor, in order to support a mythicist model for real -- they (the mythicists) need a process where the alleged writing of a novel explains the Gospel-layout better than if it was started as a biography (a bad quality one) which were fleshed out with legends from here, and cynical wisdom words from there, in order to be more attractive.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
I agree that this argument only addresses a small component of the Gospel of Mark and will never be particularly strong. But in the context of this debate most other arguments are also pretty weak. Regarding the parallels, the kind of probability model implied here where we're looking at the alternative hypotheses of random chance vs causal association involves multiplying probabilities and if three events each have a probability of 79 percent then the coincidence of all three still has a probability that's less than 50 percent. So, it's true, most people went to Jerusalem for religious festivals but not all. Most whack jobs like him would have been apprehended by Jews, but not all; some would have been killed by the Romans and some not killed at all. So I wouldn't reject these three just because they have a better than evens chance of occurring in any individual of that type.
@scottpreston3892
5 жыл бұрын
Theodore Weeden (2003) "The Two Jesuses" concludes that Jesus ben Ananias was himself a fictional character modeled on Jeremiah and invented by Josephus.
@fishersofevidence8771
4 жыл бұрын
Possible not not typical of Josephus to invent characters based on the prophets. Ananiaas may have been made up by other Jews though.
@commonsense0692
Жыл бұрын
Well the quran the only truly independent out source of Jesus clearly states Jesus was not crucified!! So maybe paul used the stories of multiple Jesuses and ppls hazy recognition of a preacher as a foundation
@fishersofevidence8771
Жыл бұрын
The Quran post-dates the earliest Christian records by several centuries and probably reflects Muslim's understanding of a version of Christianity that was co-located and contemporary with them. It is possible that the origins of that Christian group predated the introduction of the crucifixion narrative. That is speculation as we don't have any records that we can be confident came from that group at all, let alone dating from the first or second centuries.
@commonsense0692
Жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 exactly but we don’t have majority of earliest Christians complete “records” (gospels) these don’t exist until similar 2nd-3rd minimum…nobody knows what the earliest gospel said…I mean they changed the depiction of Jesus from a clean shaved in Roman tunic to a bearded wise man
@fishersofevidence8771
Жыл бұрын
@@commonsense0692 Quite so, and that lack of evidence means there is plenty of scope to propose widely different narratives of how Christianity arose. That does not mean that we cannot compare how these different narratives accord with little evidence we do have, but to do so we have to assess how they accord with all we know about the times, context, politics and the drivers for the evolution of religions, as well as have they accord with specific texts.
@nimblehorse
5 жыл бұрын
Yahshua = etymology = Yahweh salvages(Jacob-Israel) same name as Joshua transliteration thru three different languages = Jesus
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Just so. The name Jesus so familiar to us is actually unique not on account of his rarity in the ancient world but rather an account of his convoluted inter linguistic descent to us.
@Doriesep6622
5 жыл бұрын
Why doesn't the bible have more Jesuses in it if it was such a common name? Shows deliberate tinkering?
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
There is a bit of linguistic license here because Jesus and Joshua are the same name in Hebrew but they aren't translated the same in English Bibles because Joshua is translated directly whereas Jesus comes to us from Hebrew possibly via Aramaic than Greek then Latin then English. That rout of Translation is unique to the Jesus Christ character in the Bible but also crops up in Josephus.
@willempasterkamp862
5 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 Most possible Jesus is a latinised form of greek 'Hesios' meaning earthlike or taken from earth what ofcourse depicts Jesus as the second Adam taken from the Living earth or Mother earth what in greek is Gea or Ghaia. he- or ge- as in geology etc. Gen. 1-1; EL creates Heaven and Earth before the actually creation begins. This is conceptual ; EL is time (the old of days), Sama-el is energy (bright) and Micha-el is material (dark). three dimensions or a trinity, the Elohim or divine council and also 3 co-creators. Samael is the bright highpriest (a rightious tsadok) , a falling (Fallen) figure or Lightning. Michael is the dark Voice or thunder, the standing figure and mighty zealot. Both known in hebrew as the Melchi-Tsedek. in greek the Dios-Curi. A dualistic Zoroastrian (persian/indo-european) concept. Germanic walkures = guides to walhalla. Aramaic Boanerges = sons of thunder. Revalations; the (2) Witnesses of Heaven. Gemini, Thomas and Didymus (Twins). The left- and Right- hand, the Cures, Sons or Manners of God. Mighty angels or demons, lesser gods or the rulers of this age (aeon). Jesus is king + highpriest of this ordinance of Melchi + Zadok. He-sios is dark, earthly, manly, force from the He- part. The -sus or -sous part means pig or bear. Arc-tus in greek, Barack in hebrew. The adult (old, full grown, great, dark) bear in latin; Ur-sus Maior also a star-sign. Opposing the star-sign of Osiris = Sisera = Orion. Orion is the brightest star in heaven what depicts to the fallen angel, the light-bearer and Opposer. The book of Judges describes how the Hero Barack defeats the evil Sisera. Actually it is the woman Deborah who chrushes the head of the monster. The 7 planets or spirits before the throne do their part in the cosmic battle. This is an up-side-down retelling of the Creation. There it is just Michael = Marduk = Mithras = Nimrod = Orion who sacrifices EL the old Bull, Dragon, or Snake. And the Sea (dragon) was no more. The spirit flies over the dead, empty body-mass and it is revived as Gea. Born again out of Water and Spirit. Michael is Water and Earth. Samael is Air and Fire (=Spirit). Together the 4 ancient elements. Also Heaven and Earth are divided in the four roses of the compass, the 4 animals, angels at the corners of the earth and heaven. So above so below. A circle with a cross on it is the symbol of the earth. The chrushing and revival = the cuxifiction and resurrection = the creation. The father and the son are one. The origin of the Cross lays in Astro-theology. When dead Jesus is pierced his body looses water and blood (=Spirit). His Powers left him. -Christ is the counterpart of Jesus, the bright part of the whole. This bright part compares with names as Yacob, yosef, yoshua indeed. These are types of Loosers who bring relieve and comfort to their people. But Jesus is the Binder to the Law. Yashua as name for Jesus has no biblical ground and is in my opinion an anomaly.
@willempasterkamp862
5 жыл бұрын
Jesus is unique, there is no lesser or greater. But there is a guy named Joses who is said to be a brother. Brother in the wider meaning of blood-relative. More precise it was un uncle with exact the same name, indeed a common name in the family. This problem is solved by changing some vowels what gived both an unique name, see. Because there in scripture still could be some confusion this Joses is further nicknamed as John the B. He was the brother of mother Mary (the Lesser) and Andreas the Lesser , an other uncle who is also said to be a brother and nicknamed Jacobus and Stephanus to make it more clear. Their elders were Andrew the E. nicknamed as Zacharias, Kleopas, Zebedeus, Heli (in the genealogy given by Matthew from mother's side) and Cornelius (in the book of Acts) and Mary the E. nicknamed Elisabeth (from the house of Elisha = the B.) or Salome. Further there was a tutor Simon (Jude and many other nicknames) who was husband of the other Mary aka Safira. Martha did the housework and father Joseph already past away. Lazarus was the only real (steph) brother to be complete. There weren't 4 brothers or any sister that is just a joking of the gospel-writer.
@yumeniya
5 жыл бұрын
You know that Josephus was born after the stories of Jesus were circulating in Jerusalem and many years after the first Christian church was built by the apostles ? And even 2 of the gospels were written before Josephus‘ text. So he‘s the one who copied from the gospels. At least, here in Germany it’s common sense and seen as proven fact, that the first gospel was written 20-30 years after Jesus‘ death (66-76 AC). And Flavius Josephus wrote his text in 80-90 AC and he didn’t state that Jesus Christ was a myth and wrote about him too. And it’s also regarded as a fact that Pontius Pilate wasn’t a fictional but a real character, just look up the sources but there are several.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
In the past there was a question about the historicity of Pontius Pilate but that has been dispelled by archaeological evidence and now there's no dispute about it. Also I wouldn't say that the dating of the gospel is proven fact, but what you say does reflects the consensus of Western scholarship on the dates of writing of Mark and Josephus. It is entirely possible that Josephus got his information from that source, or if not directly from the Gospels from Christians who were passing on what they said. You have to be careful of the strawman the mythicists position which is not that the entire Jesus story was made up out of whole cloth along with all the characters involved in it, but rather that a previously mythical Jesus character was retrospectively inserted into history 30 to 40 years after his death, possibly at the time around the first Judeo-Roman war and possibly as a response that war which had been provoked by a firm conviction their powerful god would be on the side of the Jews. And it ended in a disastrous defeat.
@paladinheadquarters7776
4 жыл бұрын
Fishers of Evidence what about the apostle Paul’s letters? Everyone (not everyone but most people) say that his letters are reasonably early. At least some of them
@fishersofevidence8771
4 жыл бұрын
@@paladinheadquarters7776 That's true. The consensus is that the genuine letters of Paul are the earliest Christians writings we have, and incidentally also the earliest Pharisee writings we have if it is accepted that Paul was a Pharisee. In any event, Paul's writings are therefore instrumental. They are the reason why there is a mythicist theory, and their early date is part of that reason, and the other part is the impression you get from reading them. This is often not communicated clearly in this debate because so much attention is paid to to those few comments that Paul makes, which may be referring to a historical Jesus, but they are ambiguous and contested.
@danielhopkins296
2 жыл бұрын
ANANIAS/ ANUSH/ ENUS/ ENOCH: ' The Naga"
@fishersofevidence8771
2 жыл бұрын
A lot of languages to cross with that derivation. And Naga was from the other side of the world. Who could such a syncretism have occurred?
@danielhopkins296
2 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 fair question : The title, or name, SHISUNGA, from the Americas to Australia and Japan, can be found all over the ancient world,. The Nigerian, or Berber, ZENAGA, the Egyptian SHESHONK, the SHISUNAGA[1] who ruled India around 460 years before Chandragupta (Also spelled SESHANAGA / SUNAK / SHAUNAK), the Scottish / Gaelic SHENNAGHE[2], the SENACHY of Britain, the American SHAWSHANK, the Babylonian KOUNAXA (UNUK of the SHUS), are only a few of the many places where this ancient title can be found. By philologists and historians this title is most commonly read as describing an undefined attribute of a NAGA [1] The SH in SHISUNAGA appears to be the SZ digraph (t) mostly seen, to the best of my knowledge, in the HUNGARIAN language. This suggests reading the title as ZEUS, or, JAYUS, or, ESSA-SU-NAGA. [2] EISENACH is a town in Saxe-Weimar said to have a name derived from the joining of ‘iron’ (eysen) and ‘brook’(ach). I can send you the rest if you send me your email my naga 😉
@fishersofevidence8771
2 жыл бұрын
@@danielhopkins296 Naga is certainly an ancient idea and I see how it could have influenced near Eastern religion in the first and second centuries, but justifying the link would require a trail of syncretism rather than simply linguistic similarities. But in this case, I don't see the link between the Hindu / Buddhist serpent type figure and this particular Jesus Ben Ananus.
@danielhopkins296
2 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 thnxs for the feedback 🙏
@HistoryandReviews
3 жыл бұрын
This is the real Jesus not the fake one from the Gospels
@fishersofevidence8771
3 жыл бұрын
Could be, but while it seems highly likely that Jesus Ananus existed, linking into the foundation of the church is much more problematic, For Mark to have used his story for ideas for his gospel is quite feasible, but what's more difficult to understand is why Mark would have written the gospel because of the life of Ananus rather than for another reason, and simply used the life of Ananus as it was convenient.
@Dreammaster695
3 жыл бұрын
The real Jesus is one short Jewish writing and the fake Jesus has billions of followers worldwide.. says a random guy on KZitem seems legit 😄😂😂 btw the guy at the end of this video said this is a myth..
@HistoryandReviews
3 жыл бұрын
@@Dreammaster695 the MYTH of jesus you dunderhead not that the video was a myth
@GTnicholas
Жыл бұрын
These parallels can all be explained by common cultural motifs, the influence of a historical Jesus on the prophetic culture of the Jerusalemite apocalyptics, and the ordinary conduct of the Roman state. Other parallels mentioned here like a lack of defense are common today and engage so many juridical and cultural factors that we can hardly conclude "these must be the same person BC this behavior is so odd" we have no indication what the sample size of no contest pleas in Romans courts in Judea are.
@nimblehorse
5 жыл бұрын
“Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an Ancient Israelite a Jew or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew.” (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3).
@nimblehorse
5 жыл бұрын
“Jews began to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860″ Encyclopedia Judaica 1971 Vol 10:23
@nimblehorse
5 жыл бұрын
“I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Judahites, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” (Revelation 2:9)
@lindsayball5080
2 жыл бұрын
One of the witnesses in the book of revelation
@fishersofevidence8771
2 жыл бұрын
That was a different Ananus, it was the priest who had James killed.
@lindsayball5080
2 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 the jesus Ben ananus who shouted day and night near 70ad was one of the 2 witnesses.
@fishersofevidence8771
2 жыл бұрын
@@lindsayball5080 You mean from Revelation 11? I don't see the connection. Could you explain?
@lindsayball5080
2 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 watch my playlist Satan's little season. Most of revelation played out in ad70.
@fishersofevidence8771
2 жыл бұрын
@@lindsayball5080 It's a long list. Could you point me to a specific video?
@christianlaraque2234
5 жыл бұрын
Paul was not writing in the 50s
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
When was he writing?
@richjeepman5830
4 жыл бұрын
Actually, Paul last letter was the Letter to the Romans and it was in 57AD
@pedrosura
5 жыл бұрын
Not unrelated to this story is the Barrabas/Jesus story and the implaussibility of Mark’s trial of Jesus. When then you add this “scene” which matches the story in Josephus, it’s hard to ignore that this is all fiction, even if there was a historical man.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
This is David Fitzgerald's argument of Jesus at the Vanishing Point. He says, with good reason, that if you take out of the Jesus story everything we know isn't true because it's supernatural, then strip out everything that looks like it's come from somewhere else, what you're left with amounts to so lo little that it is impossible to distinguish between an obscure historical figure and a myth. Well we know there's a lot of mythology involved that's very important and that vanishing point issue makes the historical figure, if he existed, of no relevance. I don't quite agree with this argument because I think we are left with one thing in particular, the crucifixion. If that could be convincingly argued to be of non historical origin then the mythicists would have a pretty competitive case, but that so far has eluded them.
@pedrosura
5 жыл бұрын
Fishers of Evidence Was Romulus cruxifiction historical? Maybe the legend grew out of a historical man. What archeological evidence is there for Jesus Chirst being crucified? Are you going to count plausibility as evidence?? If Jesus Christ was crucified, that date, place would be known not by conjecture but by evidence. It is not. Julius Ceasar was born July 12... Jesus???? Im sorry but no evidence means no evidence. When the evidence shows up, then you would be right to believe it. You can always take it on Faith.. just dont call it evidence or historical.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Romulus wasn't crucified either historically or in myth. We have accounts of his death that include being torn limb from limb, being murdered by senators and being taken up into heaven by Mars in a storm; but not crucifixion. What you mean by no evidence is not no evidence but no evidence after you've dismissed all the evidence that you have decided to dismiss, which includes the gospels, the writings of, Paul, Tacitus and Josephus. I'm not saying I disagree with you dismissing those as evidence but I think it's a bit of a sleight of hand to simply assert there is no evidence without acknowledging there's a value judgment necessary in reaching that conclusion.
@pedrosura
5 жыл бұрын
Fishers of Evidence Paul cruxifiction account is useless. Had Paul said that the Jews killled Jesus or Pontius Pilate killed him there would be NO ISSUE HERE. It would be settled. Josephus never gives the Cruxifiction account for Jesus Christ and the Testimonium Flavianum is obviously forged. Why is it forged? Why doesnt Paul know the Jews or Pilate killed Jesus?? Tacitus is too late to be a source because he could be relaying what Christians believe from reading the Gospels. You are missing the point. We need to find out if the Gospels are historical or ACTs. We cant use the Gospels to prove the Gospels. Can we use Lord of the Rings to prove Lord of the Rings? Is there any extra Biblical evidence of the cruxifiction?? Where is it? No evidence is no evidence. There could have been a Jesus that was crucified, but where is the evidence? If there had been evidence, it would have surely been preserved. I have not “decided” to dismiss evidence. It is just not there. Other than a Gospel and Acts telling a story and Christians believing it what else do you have? Maybe you know something I dont? What convinces you? Is it that you dont think Jews would believe in a resurrected God unless they really killed him? If that is enough for you, it isnt for me. You and I have different standards of evidence. BTW I would be perfectly Happy with a historical Jesus and I would celebrate any piece if evidence that could be found: Roman inscriptions, lost documents anything. I would really welcome it.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Maybe I mean something different by the word evidence from what you do. When I say the Gospels are evidence I do not mean that they say Jesus was crucified and that means he was. I mean that the Gospels exist and they are relevant to the study of early Christianity. For a theory on the origin of Christianity to be even remotely competitive it must explain why and how the Gospels came to exist and why and how they contain crucifixion narratives. The particular issue here is that Paul was the first person we know to mention crucifixion and he has little or nothing to say about a historical Jesus. But he has a lot to say about Jesus' crucifixion. Where did you get that idea from? History or myth and it's not clear-cut.
Пікірлер: 122