The Missing Years of Jesus

The Missing Years of Jesus

2011, Religion  -   298 Comments
Ratings: 6.50/10 from 86 users.

The Missing Years of JesusIt is one of the greatest mysteries of all time: the whereabouts of Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30.

There is a blank space in the record that covers eighteen years in the life of Christ (from age 12 to 30). Other than the generic allusion that Jesus advanced in wisdom, stature, and in favor with God and man (Luke 2:52), the Bible gives nothing more about Jesus' life during this time span.

A common assumption amongst Christians is that Jesus simply lived in Nazareth during that period, but there are various accounts that present other scenarios, including travels to India.

Today, scholars are forming a clearer picture of his life by re-examining stories in the New Testament gospels and connecting them with new archeological discoveries.

A narrative rich in details and subtle clues begins to emerge. Go back to Nazareth in 6 A.D. to learn more about the blue-collar village, its oppressed inhabitants and abusive Roman rulers to see how it shaped Jesus personality and beliefs.

More great documentaries

298 Comments / User Reviews

  1. yes it's true Jesus went to India but left when he was 30 years because He was teaching everybody which anoyed the elders.

  2. On Grail Christianity" discusses the legends and traditions of Christians not only in the west of England and Ireland, but in such far flung locales as Lebanon that during the missing years Christ traveled at least once and possibly twice to Britain on Phoenician ships owned by his great uncle, Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph was known as the "tin man" as his interest in England was to trade with the miners of the Mendip hills. Following the Passion Joseph is said to have returned to Britain with the Holy Grail.

  3. I've been missing for at least that long.

    1. The show regarding the missing years of Jesus was a poor portrait of Jesus, they had him confused, didn't mention anything about God or that he was the son of God, they had him looking scruffy and dirty and inaccurate information. It was a TV diss of Jesus in my opinion.

  4. as always. these history channel documentaries, too much bla bla bla and no answers.....
    all that time of personal opinion just to say that in 1893 there was a book , that they did not even know the name for it, to just say he was in india. what a waste of time..

    it should not be called documentary, but simply a personal commentary show.

  5. I was once a sceptic, Is this Jesus real? YES, HE IS. I learned how real He is because on July 4th, 1991, I called on God to help me. I started in a church that observed the LAW, 10 commandments for 2 ½ years. I left that church and God sent a friend I knew in the world that is now a pastor. I’ve known him for over 25 years. He said God told me to come to you. The Pastor told me I am born again, I am no longer under the law, I am under the grace of God. I was filled with the holy spirit and Jesus spoke to me and told me I did not want you to live the way I had lived, selling drugs. Immediately, I hated the devil. The word of God, the bible came alive. Every word became real and I saw Jesus. He turned my life around. I serve HIM with all my heart soul ad mind. So, this is for all you sceptics out there, He is real. He walked on this earth, he was 100% God and 100% man. He is coming back and trust me HELL is REAL also. And God is running hell as well as heaven. Please don’t think you’re going to hell running anything. Scripture tells us… Psalm 139:8 If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. So, if you continue to deny Jesus and make your bed in hell, I pray for you because to live in torment forever and ever and ever and ever will be a horrible way to live all eternity forever…….

  6. The reason the boy Jesus gave this response to his mother Mary, after she asked her son, what was you're intention of not informing us ( his parents, Joseph and Mary, ) of his leaving them, to go to wherever God sends him as a child ( Jeremiah 1:7 ) into the distant lands with the traveling merchants who makes their return to the shores of Jerusalem once every three years, ( 2 Chronicles 9:21 ) without letting his parents know what he was not to tell no one, including them, his siblings, the priests, the officials, nor the king: Mary said, to a now, 29 year old Jesus, your father and I turned our heads to talk to you and we notice you were gone. So we began looking around for you son, we thought you might have been for a moment with the caravan traveling merchants. we went to see if we could locate you among you're relatives and friends but could not find you, and that's you're father and I became worried. Jesus said to his parents, The reason my Parents did not find me is because my parents were not to know what God has put in my heart to do. I had a requirement to keep. No one was to know of my whereabouts except God. He said to me, do not be afraid to leave you're family while being a child. He said to me, I am to go to all the places that he sends me as Jeremiah did when he was a child. I read of what Jeremiah did as a child, he left from his family too. waiting in the desert in that lodging area where the travelers be. I was there waiting on the caravan merchants so that I can leave. Then i left. I knew that after I read of Jeremiah while he was young, he began a journey to all the places, coming and going through out the countries, to learn from the great wise men, i had to take leave. I couldn't do what Samson did and tell you what God put in my heart. I was not to tell no one of my Fathers private affairs. This secret i have is not to be made known. Lol

  7. Read some of these comments and it was hard just keeping up with all the "politics". I don't have a profound theological, intellectual or historical point to make and I haven't seen this ( I was looking for another documentary) but I do have simple factual and true insight that can never be debunked: I never believed Jesus really existed and sought out to intellectually and historically discover him. I read books and wasn't convinced. I was also a functioning opiod addict and so in my ignorance I called out Jesus on his legendary ability to perform miracles. I said " If you are Almighty, take this from me!" I awoke one morning 13 yrs ago and the addiction was gone. I was freaked out. It has never returned. I was searching for intellectual evidence and I received that which transcends our limited human reaches. I know that I know Jesus existed and that is why I don't have an argument. I am living the reality of who he is in my life. I was a borderline aethiest and I say that because I was curious about the historical (not spiritual) Jesus. Today , his undeniable presence (that is a real presence making itself known within me) in the form of the Holy Spirit constantly reminds me he not only existed but remains very much alive in me......sounds like magic or something far fetched and mythical to any of you? I don't blame you it sounded like rubbish to me too until I called Jesus out and here I am without an argument just wide eyed wonder and gratitude.

  8. He just led a normal life because if i am not mistaken his entry on the donkey into Jerusalem was prophesied to occur on a specific day.If he was doing supernatural things in his youth it may have effected prophesyThe bible has a tendency to include only essential information. We've already have a zillion denominatios just from the information we have already.

  9. what i don't get about religion is the god who created everything so we are told ,so why does a god so powerful and a christian god at that need us ,Why would the most powerful god of them all need puny humans to worship him in fact why would he need to create a earth planet with us on it.plain common sense tells me that the whole story about all of creation is based on fantasy and lies either we humans are very important or irrelevant, whatever that truth of all of this story i believe we will pay dearly we are pawns for how f***ed up all of this creation business is

  10. Nazareth simply did not exist in 6 AD.

  11. So what exactly do you all believe in if not in Jesus, what could possible be logical and factual enough to say otherwise...gentlemen any thoughts on your beliefs?

    The reason I ask most of the comments have nothing to do with the video shown but assumptions for the sake of arguments. Maybe out of hatred towards Christianity. Granted most Christians are not truly followers of christ, but rather following the masses, in acceptance. Just a thought for you. Kind of like "I see you do it and I want the same." Youngsters point of view to celebrities?...

    Now about this video, it seems to be a buyable assumption ever more so than Jesus going to India. But then again an assumption not based on actuality, nor because national geographic says so. The "actual" life of Jesus nobody really knows, well except the people of his time, and the people that lived with him. I do have to say in the studies of that time every jewish boy had to learn Leviticus at a very young age. And studied in communal oral studies, due to the fact there were not very many scrolls running around with the scriptures in them, house churches they were called. So to say Jewish people were illiterate, I don't know about that statement...Anyway Jesus did become a Rabbi, hence why the masses called him "rabbi" or "teacher"... Point being Jewish history is not simple just as any other history, and to try to depict a persons life with assumptions is just bizarre thinking. But I guess some people have nothing better else to do but try to disprove something to get some recognition or acceptance.

    1. Well said! It is better not to rely on the understanding of man but the word of God. A relationship with God is not based on the teachings of men but on a supernatural connection to the creator through his son Jesus the Christ. Nobody will understand it if they have not yet experienced it.

    2. You asked what I believe, if not in Jesus, so I'm going to give it to you as short and sweet as I can. I believe in good, I believe in equal rights for all people, I believe in minimizing harm and suffering for as many people as I can and I believe in making this planet a better place for my children and everyone else I leave behind when I go. This list could be much longer but I think you'll get the picture. I don't follow Jesus because I don't feel that the Bible meets my standard for morality and ethics. If you believe in the trinity, which I assume you do, Jesus (a.k.a. God) can be seen committing genocide, condoning child rape and murder, sanctioning incest and a host of other terrible cruelties. If I believed there was a god, Jesus would be one of the last ones I would dedicate my life towards.

    3. Okay, I understand your answer, and thank you for taking the time to respond. Lets start with the first thing yes, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Second, do I have a problem of what "people" have made him to be and the religion that has come out of it, absolutely. Is the bible true, yes it is, was it written in English, is was not. Do we have to go back in time to understand what it means today, yes. Has there been misenterpreations, greed, fallacy, ignorance, all those things, yes. Now, is there a better way to understand what the world has become because of what Man has made it to be, yes, the bible depicts a clear picture of humanity. God, in essence he is Good, he is perfect, he is our creator who gives us life and a free will to do as we please or to choose him. Granted, most of us choose the latter, and blame him for our actions, or blame religion for our decisions. I don't want to say the only reason you know good from bad is because of what you have suffered, the sorrow you might of felt at one point, and/or tragedies you have seen or the gift that Lord has given you to see, pain and wrong doings at the core. Now the problem, man will seek his own, always, man wants to be worshiped, man loves himself more than God, so wanting equal rights for all people, minimizing suffering, giving a better living to the next generation is near to a fantasy. At longest man love themselves more than God we will always have to see what we see today, until the Return of Jesus. Yes it may sound bogus to you, and maybe Christians have showned you how horrible God is, but remember is the people who are the fallen creatures, we are the ones who need a savior, to give us an opportunity and bridge the gap between our creator and our fallen nature. That is who Jesus is, through him we can have a direct connection with the Father, not through religious worship. And you know I too had a hard time going throught the old testament, or the tanakh, as is called. But I had to understand why things happened the way it did, for non the less there is no other way to even believe that one is a better peson than the other for we all do the same things differently.

    4. Hmmm. So basically you're saying that you base what you believe and how you live on the Bible and it being the true word of 'God'?
      You said;
      " Is the bible true, yes it is, was it written in English, is was not. Do we have to go back in time to understand what it means today, yes. Has there been misenterpreations, greed, fallacy, ignorance, all those things, yes."

      Where your Gospels contradict each other, what do you do? How do you reconcile believing mutually exclusive 'stories'?
      You mentioned the usual cop-out of 'misenterpreations' [sic], but what about where the Gospels flat out contradict each other? (In the same authored language, so no translation problems) And what about parts that were added much later on? (the 'story' of the adulterous woman that was added on later)

      If you wish to claim they don't contradict, read these passages and answer these questions for starters.
      Of the other 2 men on crosses that day, how many mocked Jesus, 1 or both?
      Matt 27:39-44 then read Luke 23:36-43.

      How much did Jesus say at his 'trial'? Just a few words then nothing, or did he speak more? Matt 27:11-14, then read John 18:33-37.

      You could do yourself a favor, and get a copy of 'Misquoting Jesus' by Dr. B. Ehrman. You'd learn much more about your Bible then you know now. There are many more problems that have nothing to do with translation.

      Your above questions answered properly.

      "Is the Bible true?" (what you really mean is, 'Is the Bible the inerrant word of 'God') Some parts are accurate, some parts are not, much of it we don't and can't know what was originally written. It is absolutely not the inerrant word of 'God', no, it can't be. It's contradictions rule out that possibility.

      "Was it written in English". Actually yes, it was written in English, many times, but you mean 'originally authored in'. Greek mostly is the answer to that. Which brings up yet another problem for your 'story', how could Aramaic speaking, most probably illiterate 'fisherman' compose 'books' written in the 'intellectual' language of the time? (Are you even aware that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were not authored by the Apostles?)

      "Do we have to go back in time to understand what it means today"? How do you time travel? ;) IF you actually did 'go back in time' to understand it, you'd find yourself in a political situation that absolutely helps make sense of your Bible and it's absurd claims. One more problem for your 'God' hypothesis. How could a perfect, all knowing God let his 'rule-book', our supposed ONLY chance for survival, become so manipulated, mistranslated and misquoted? That's not very fair on us now, as we have absolutely no way of knowing what was said or originally written about what was supposedly said and done.
      He supposedly can do 'divine inspiration', but not 'divine conservation'?

      "Has there been misenterpreations, [sic] greed, fallacy, ignorance..."
      Of course there has, exactly as you'd expect from man. Not supposedly from a 'perfect being' though, yet that's what you get, IN the bible. Again, 'He' can't do 'divine conservation' so why bother with the 'divine inspiration' in the first place.
      Some other adjectives that you can also add to your 'God' as revealed in your Bible, jealous, murderous, vengeful, boastful, ignorant, two-faced (or should that be 3-faced?), inconsistent, dishonest. The list could go on and on.

      Base your life on lies if you wish, but don't BS others about it, it's bad enough you BS yourself.

    5. Well said, now here, "Some other adjectives that you can also add to your 'God' as revealed in your Bible, jealous, murderous, vengeful, boastful, ignorant, two-faced (or should that be 3-faced?), inconsistent, dishonest. The list could go on and on." isn't this exactly what humanity is? Created in his image. Just a point. Now let me get back to your assumptions, mind you they are assumptions, proposed to add wrathful, bigoted, so many other descriptions for God, none the less we are his reflection all of us including you.

      "Where your Gospels contradict each other, what do you do? How do you reconcile believing mutually exclusive 'stories'?"

      Going back to the Gospels, as you know they are biographies of Jesus when he walked the earth, taken from different people, different points of views, we are all different people have not changed and we all like to get our point across differently, But I'm sure you already knew that.

      ", most probably illiterate 'fisherman' compose 'books' written in the 'intellectual' language of the time? (Are you even aware that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were not authored by the Apostles?)" Okay, so you do understand that scribes existed back then correct? I mean coming from an oral culture, you being under oppresion by the roman empire, out the 4 two were disciples and one was an aducated physician (Luke), good friend of Paul, author of the epistles to the church, (I'm positive you already knew that) and of course Mark, not an apostle. I would not like to offend you, but it seems that you alredy are, I may be wrong. I apologize if I did.

      So lets talk about God, if God is so divine and so powerful, why not stop the misinterpretation, manipulation to use peoples (spiritiual) guilt to make money, create division, list goes on you know?...Well he is also just, compassionate, loving, and gives us way too much grace, that we ALL do not deserve. You included. Nonetheless we are all still here, living in a cruel senseless world were people are in charge and have free will to choose or not choose. We all choose not God, I included, I choose to do my own thing, I choose to drink to numb the pain, I almost chose suicide because of my past, but I'm still here if it wasn't for him. And i ask why me? Why not the rest of individuals who have died in the hands of trained monkeys...military...for the sake of profit, those who died in chemical warefare, the buddha belivers who were mutiliated, the Muslim believers in the crusades...list go on.

      Now here "Base your life on lies if you wish, but don't BS others about it, it's bad enough you BS yourself." If I was basing my life on lies I think I would live a miserable life, am I saying that I am right? No, do I have grace? yes I do, is it hard to believe yes. If I was to share BS, I would say nothing matters, if i was sharing BS to others I would also keep quiet. This is for you If I was to read what you recommended, which is a novel based on a point of view nevertheless an opion of one individual that you have let influence your point of view, why whould you share such BS to me? Does that seem fair to you? If you an individual of such high education should know by now we all thrive out of pride, arrongance and bigoted self taught, why seek to insult? One last question, If you were God what would you do differently? Or what would you leave for your creation to seek you, if you give them free will or just the simply ability to think and choose? Thank You for responding.

    6. Ahh, that's how you reconcile the contradictions, the same as others with 'faith'. Just ignore them, or pass them off with a fallacy and go back to your sandpit face-plant.
      A different point of view, is not the same as a different story, despite your attempt, again, to dismiss the problems your 'scriptures' have without properly addressing them.
      You also say you don't claim to be right. Yes you do, every time you make a statement about your 'God' you're claiming knowledge of 'Him'. Get honest with yourself for a change Alex. I don't know if there is or isn't some deity, but I sure as sh1t know what's in the Bible and Qu'ran are not 'It'. The inaccuracies and outright contradictions to themselves and known facts discovered since their authorship, dictate that your Books of BS are just that, BS.

      Didn't read the passages? Or just don't want to talk about them? They are not, as you claim, the same with slight differing viewpoints, they are different accounts that, (here's the important bit Alex, try to keep up), that are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be accurate and true. Your attempt to pass it off as just different viewpoints is absurdly pathetic, and considering you didn't even address the problem, rather dishonest of you.
      As you said, if Jesus lived, the only people who could have known what was said were those alive then, that actually saw and heard it. You make the claim they Authored the Gospels, (written by scribes now you say) and they come from that time, prove it. Its your claim, your burden of proof. Show evidence that proves they were written then, by the people you claim.
      When were your earliest manuscripts that you have written, and by whom? How and where do they differ from later manuscripts?

      Why any insults? Because of your absurd claims of knowledge you don't and can't possess. Because you are insulting first with your preaching, so I'm replying in kind. You, as per your faith's believed mandate, instead of believing what you wish and let others do the same , try to make out you not only actually know 'God' is real for sure, but also his mind and wishes, and instructions. Things that you can't know. Living your lie, even worse, believing it and trying to make others too.

      Made in His image? Hmm, how many 'Trinities' do you know? What about women? No 'Her' image to copy. I know the BS Adam's rib story... save it. That is also a blatant lie your Book of BS contains, Adam and Eve the first and only two humans. My evidence is in our DNA, the DNA of all life we've looked at, the fact of evolution, the fossil record, and logical sense. Your evidence is... a copy of a copy of a copy..., written by someone that wasn't there, and also supposedly wrote about his own death and funeral after he died.
      How would YOU know His image anyway? Evidence please. Again it's your claim, your burden of proof.
      Your scriptures are NOT evidence, they're man authored ideas about a supposed deity, and are thus not evidence any more then the Qu'ran, Book of Morman, Vedas, or any or any other claimed 'scriptures' are.

      Faulty logic with your 'living a lie would make you miserable' claim as well. IF you're correct, then yours is the only God. Anyone else not believing in your version therefore would be 'living a lie', and under your logic must be miserable then. Look around, you'll find your fellow believers (those with the exact same beliefs, mind you) are not the only 'non miserable' people in the world. Which soundly debunks your hypothesis right there.

      Your middle part explains your dependence and 'dead man's grip' on your beliefs. It's your crutch to keep you going. Which although it makes your position more melancholy and understandable, doesn't lend it any credence or make it any more plausible. Your weaknesses are yours, HTFU and deal with life. If you need that crutch, whatever, don't BS that you know its true, you can't and don't.

      Wrong, 'Misquoting Jesus' is not a novel, its in the religion genre. Its based on evidence, and hard, 'no faith required' facts. (I know, very rare in that genre, no wonder you mistake it for a novel like most of the rest of the books there) Yet you wouldn't know that, you'd rather stay blinded in your religious comfort-blanket it seems. You'd like to think its a novel, but you're only kidding yourself again. How would you know if you've not even read it and examined its claims? Your reluctance to even examine the claims honestly, reveals much about your 'faith'.

      No, your posts here contradict your claim that if you were talking BS you'd be quiet. You didn't even look at the evidence I suggested, just banged on with your exact same preaching and excuses regardless of its very real and revealing problems that were brought up. Living the lie.

      If I woke up and found myself to be 'your God' one day, I'd do the universe a favor and think myself out of ever existing. Assuming I had a plan and wanted my sheep to follow it, firstly, I'd make sure if I was going to do divine inspiration, I'd also be able to do divine conservation. Not let my 'rule book' be what it is, an inconsistent load of rubbish mixed in with the odd truthful bit to try to maintain some sort of credibility. Then copied and recopied out of all recognition from the original to the point no one can tell what was first written. Or allow extra's to be added on a thousand odd years after the supposed facts.

      Trained Monkeys? Show at least some respect for others that have died ensuring
      you have the country and benefits you have, you ungrateful pr1ck. Those people we know for sure died, not to mention the others wounded that do/have had to live with it. There is ample evidence for those real people, unlike your deity claims, and whether you think they were misguided or not doesn't negate their sacrifice for you and yours, and YOU have enjoyed the benefits they gave up. Fk you, for them and me, for your lack of respect to a real, known sacrifice, beliefs or non beliefs.

      You drop your preaching BS, I'll drop the insults, we can talk about it rationally and honestly. If not, shove your preaching up your Holy dogma, you'll reap what you sow.

    7. I am not ignoring them actually, you are a very emotional individual, control your emotions brotha, your pointing things out that are written BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE...ONE MATTHEW A TAX COLLECTOR and THE OTHER LUKE A PHYSICIAN...ONE WAS MENT FOR THE JEW COMMUNITY AND THE OTHER FOR THE NON-JEW. MATTHEW = for JEW, LUKE = NON JEW. Alright let me go to the scriptures then, here is the reason why I didn't address them in the first place, you have already made up your mind with presupposition of the Bible being a total fallacy because of different points of views written by different people. I would like to explain this deeply to you, and I'm not trying to talk about just bible but it is actually common sense, that 4 people wrote about anything, whether be a play, a film, sporting event, they will all have different points of views. Therefore they will jot down what they want to convey, I am not ignoring the fact that one addresses that all are mocking him, and the other addresses one of the men next to him repenting...So I'm going to help you out, Matthew was not present nor Luke at the time of the crucifixion. Matthew ran off to hide same with the rest of disciples. Luke was not even a disciple, he was a good friend of Paul, who hated followers of Christ, and helped killed them. If anything it should of been female writers instead. But females were not allowed nor taken seriously back in that culture. Anyway, taking it back to me, I said do i feel that I am right? Nope. Is the Bible that is right. Sit shut your mouth for once, read and watch as the world unfolds infront of your eyes how precise everything is, how God knows exactly who we are and what we are, the spiritual prostitutes that we ALL are. And Yes we all need a savior, We all do. But anyway, lets go back to you.

      "Trained Monkeys? Show at least some respect for others that have died ensuring you have the country and benefits you have, you ungrateful pr1ck. Those people we know for sure died, not to mention the others wounded that do/have had to live with it. There is ample evidence for those real people, unlike your deity claims, and whether you think they were misguided or not doesn't negate their sacrifice for you and yours, and YOU have enjoyed the benefits they gave up. Fk you, for them and me, for your lack of respect to a real, known sacrifice, beliefs or non beliefs."

      Some respect? sure I agree, but here is the thing and dont..lem me see how you say it...IGNORE THE FACT WITH BS...the only reason we are priviledged pr*cks you included is because we are stomping on other peoples heads for the sake of profit. mmmm let that one sink, every country you go to, there is child, women, man chain to labor slavery, even here in this country...To allow us to have what we have, the car, the house, the image, the arrogance, the money..or whatever else. Benefits? yea, no benefits we too are exploited monkeys, you too, you are not as smart as you think. slave to society of depravity. Anyway. Real Sacrifice? common sir, wake up, people are dying not for the sake of freedom, profit, profit, profit, profit...freedom is just a word trown around like saying that you matter or that your opinion matters to this country. At the end of the day is the people in control getting what they want? If they don't they keep pushing for the empire to grow, but lets call it world peace, through wars. Common, common, brotha, what the heck are you so pationate about? That there is no substance in your behalf just arguments. Is there a sadness for all those lost lives? YES, YES, YES, absolutely, but lets not forget what we are getting fed, poison, poison, killing us surely and slowly, and nobody says anything...heart disease, diabetes, suicide, OD, seriously, just to point it out. Ungrateful perhaps, but I do not stand for genocide of people and call it thanks giving.

      Here is another thing, your morals and ethics do come from the Bible. It comes from the Lord, which inspired the scriptures, believe it or not it is what it is.

      "If I woke up and found myself to be 'your God' one day, I'd do the universe a favor and think myself out of ever existing. Assuming I had a plan and wanted my sheep to follow it, firstly, I'd make sure if I was going to do divine inspiration, I'd also be able to do divine conservation. Not let my 'rule book' be what it is, an inconsistent load of rubbish mixed in with the odd truthful bit to try to maintain some sort of credibility. Then copied and recopied out of all recognition from the original to the point no one can tell what was first written. Or allow extra's to be added on a thousand odd years after the supposed facts." I see, well God could of done that too, but he chose to let us live and give us life. And give us, not a rule book, cause the bible is not a rule book actually, people and stupidity have made it out to be that way. The actual translation of the Torah stands as follow "The best Way to Live under his Blessings" Oh yea the Scribes, well let me see, aren't the scribes the ones who wrote down the oral stories told by others, I could be wrong, by this time there were many followers. I could be wrong.

      "If not, shove your preaching up your Holy dogma, you'll reap what you sow." Isn't that what Jesus said, the bible? well except the whole shoving down preacing thing.

    8. I'm not and never will be your 'brotha'. Only my siblings and friends can call me that, you're neither.
      And lol, again you assume too much. Why do you think I chose the words 'reap what you sow'?
      I'm also not from the USA as it seems you've assumed. How many kangaroos have you seen in the States lately? (my avatar)
      How very christian of you telling me to shut my mouth, not to mention your blatant disregard for the rules here with your CAP-LOCK RANT. Yelling doesn't make your point any more accurate. And I'm the emotional one? lol
      It is off topic here, and yes, it is personal to me when people like yourself talk about military people as you did. I have family and friends that have served, and I have witnessed some of the cost to them and families, and discussed reasons and motivations for joining up. I know they're not all what you think and claim, so don't talk to me about that here Alex. Off topic is reason enough.

      Back to the topic, Christianity.
      To use your words, 'I'll help you out a bit here.' I grew up going to a few different religious schools, a couple of denominations, and have had to do Bible studies for about 15-odd years. There's no stories you've said so far that I've not heard many times before. So you can stop acting like you're talking to a beginner on your Bible stories. I'm not claiming I'm an academic or scholar on the Bible, but I do have years of experience on it and believers, and by the looks so far know more about it then you do.

      There is a big problem with your answer for the contradictions in the Gospels.
      Yes, 4 people might witness something and have different points of view when re-telling it later. A car crash for example. One might remember the car tyres screech, one might recall seeing a red car, another remember the crunching sound as it hit the parked truck, and the last remember the carnage of the damage.
      What you will not get from the 4 witnesses, is one say it was a blue car, the other say it was a red car, one say it was speeding and hit the parked truck, and the last say the truck ran over the car.
      Their stories may differ and emphasise the part that made an impression on them, BUT their stories will be consistent with each others, and NOT mutually exclusive.
      So your answer that its just different points of view doesn't alleviate the problem. Therefore, it's not an answer, its an excuse and non-examination of the problem. The different story about the other 2 men crucified for example.
      Here's a quick and by no means exhaustive list of a few of the problems you can find between the stories in the NT, that are mutually exclusive. The questions are for you to look at, I'm not interested in you replying again with the 'different point of view fallacy'. That is not the answer. I already know these contradictions are in there.

      -What day did Jesus die? Passover, or the day before?
      -Which also means, was the last supper the Passover Meal or not?
      -what time did Jesus die?
      -with the 'denial of Jesus and the cock crow', was it before, after, or after more then one crow? How many denials where made when exactly?
      -Can one get to heaven following the Tora? (Compare Matt and Paul's ideas on that)
      -Did Jesus carry the cross up the mount by himself, or did he get help from Simon of Cyrene?
      -Did Jesus talk to anyone while carrying the cross or not?
      -When did the curtain in the Temple tear in half? Before, or after Jesus died?
      -Who went to the tomb 3 days later? Was it Mary by herself, or with other women?
      -Was the stone entrance open or not when she/they reached the tomb?
      -Who was already in the tomb? 1 man, 2 men, or 1 angel?
      -What were she/they instructed to tell the disciples, stay in Jerusalem, or go to Galilee?
      -What did the disciples do then?

      There are many more. What you need to do Alex, is instead of reading them one after the other and turning them all into one big story in your mind, read one at a time. List everything that was done, when and by whom. Do it for all 4 Gospels, then compare your lists.
      Do it yourself, don't take my word for it. See for yourself, there are problems your excuses don't and can't explain. Common sense you claim? Use some after you examine the problems properly yourself. You'll see if you do it honestly without bias either way (unlike your claims about myself), that 'different points of view' does not explain away the contradictions at all.

      And that's without even addressing the even bigger problem, that being we have no way of knowing what was originally written. It has been proven many times that the stories have been changed and modified many times.
      You have enough to keep you busy, if you're really sincerely interested in proving to yourself whether my claims are true or not. Its time you took your own advice, and 'wake up sir'.

  12. Bottom line is whether or not he existed, as of right now, Jesus is not alive, but if you believe in G-d why not just cut out the middle man and go straight to the source??? We all have the potential to be like Jesus so why not own our holyness and stop looking elsewhere for validation?

    1. This is such an ignorant statement bro. Jesus was sent so that we may commune with God. The bible makes it clear that only through Jesus can we reach God. And for being like Christ...Well Christ never sinned, that is why he was an acceptable sacrifice for ours. And as no man is without sin, none can be like Jesus. So in the future, before making such s*upid comments, read the bible so that you may know what you are talking about. Cutting out the middle man will be of no profit to you. As for owning your holiness - what holiness?

  13. It was and still is Jewish law that all Jewish boys read the Torah. To say that most Jews during the time of Jesus were illiterate is just IGNORANT! The Jews were and are still known as the People of the Book. How can you have such ignorant "experts" on your National Geographic video saying such ignorant things? You must not have had any Jews working on this video, since any Jew would know that.

    Christians, also, should know this since it is specifically mentioned in the New Testament by Paul when he wrote back to the Christans in Jerusalem.

    1. So what if they are known as the "people of the book?" That doesn't mean anything. How do you know that at the time of JC, it was Jewish law that ALL Jewish boys read the Torah and that they could read it in Hebrew and understand it? This does not mean that JC was in any way conversant in the language. Where does Paul mention this and so what if he does?

      Have you studied the period? It would seem you have not? Why don't you before placing your ignorance on the screen for all to see?

  14. I guess none of those good historians would have agreed to do the film if they had used his real name. Jesus Christ is not something you name a baby especially when he wasnt found to be the "anointed one" till later in life. The whole documentary is about him yet they never use his birth name Joshua Benhur. I think it would have been a better doc if they talked about that instead of the relationship with his mother etc

    1. It's Josue or Jesue (transliterations)--and Ben Hur was a novel written by General Lew Wallace, not "Jesue's" last name.

    2. His name at birth is Jesus.

    3. i have deleted many recent posts from you as they are obviously proselytizing. feel free to make your case but please read the comment policy and do not try to convert others

    4. I also am deleting many one liner monosyllabic and proselytizing posts from you. Consider this your second warning, any more and you are out!

  15. when are we going to stop depicting Jesus as caucasian? Some will reply; "What difference does it make?" It seems to make a BIG difference to those that keep misleading others...

    1. So how would you like to have him depicted, with more Semitic features perhaps?

    2. Well - I think he should look like me albeit a little taller and with more hair.

      I rest my case.

    3. well Semitic people are Caucasian. Hey get the modern idea of white being pale out of your head, race is based on skull structure.

    4. How about reading the Wikipedia article on race or an anthropology textbook before making such an ignorant statement.

    5. Lets examine your assertion that race is based on skull structure. Going from what I've seen of your posts, I doubt you'll take the sound advice given to you by robertallen1, someone who clearly knows more on the subject then you, and do some reading on the subject.
      From the suggested article on race in Wikipedia;
      "While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used[4] in a naive[5] or simplistic way, i.e. that among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[6][7]

      Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies [8] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[9] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits."

      Even a cursory examination of your claim shows you are wrong. I expect that will be a recurring theme in your posts.

    6. Jesus and all Jews are more Near Asian in genetic makeup than Caucasian. There are many variations on the term: Caucasian. Most popularly, those people of the Caucasus Mountains.

      My family, for instance, are Ashkenazim and do not consider ourselves to be Caucasian, historically. They settled in Bavaria and came from somewhere in what is historically Palestine.

      Christof Meiners was an Anti-Semitic, small minded "scientist" intent upon separating humans into two basic groups: Caucasian or Mongolian in heritage. His work was based, in large part, to his own definition of "physical attractiveness", or his own interpretation of that "beauty." Completely bogus hypothesis, misuse of basic scientific methodology and a sham of a conclusion. Flat out: "Bad Science."

      In the late 1700's though, it all depended upon who was "paying the freight for your research." Usually the King or Pope.

      The farther back into the genetic record we delve, the more African we all become. Allot of skull structure, skin color, facial traits and hair color become environmental/geographical traits rather than genealogical.

      A paradox: "If God created all humans in His image, why are some of us dark skinned, some light skinned, some Oriental and some Nordic, Aleut, Mediterranean, Pacific Islanders, etc., etc, in appearance?"

  16. The control motivations of the church, and the majority of religions for that matter, seem plainly obvious but I do believe Jesus lived, as did Buddah and other spiritual leaders, and that he was a gifted messenger, a guru, a shaman, a messiah for his time - regardless of the misuse of his story by people leading organized religion.

    1. It does not matter who among the "spiritual leaders"? lived and who died.

      "The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate sized planet, orbiting around a very average sized star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies."

      "We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes."

      Stephen Hawking:...Reality on the Rocks.
      Beyond our Ken 1995.

    2. What you believe is of no consequence. It's what you can prove which so far amounts to nothing, especially as all our knowledge of "Jesus" comes secondhand from conflicting accounts.

  17. Jesus Christ is made up story by Roman Catholic Church for social political control.

    1. Actually it's a series of made-up stories by what became the Roman Catholic Church--but you're right about the social/political control.

  18. so Jesus got mad at the Jews and come up with a plan to start his own religion because he thought it would be the only way to change things

  19. So much to argue and endless claim about Jesus and Bible . Always make me wonder why the earlier christian never build something like pyramid or something big and massive that house all their story in rock carving ,can withstood the test of time for all of us to wonder in awe . The Egyptian , Sumerian ,Mayan , Aztec , Buddhist and Hindu all did it well with rock or writing that is there for us to read .

  20. I hear the voices in which the words make no sence.
    Rain water eventually turns grape seeds into wine. The sun appears walking on water at the end of the day on a lake. You were killed if you didn't buy into the enslaving God belief, void of logic.

  21. Jesus was just another Jew killed by the Romans (encouraged by the Jewish heirachy). There were thousands of them, he is just another one. The whole virgin birth thing was stolen from other religions as were many other Christian myths in the Bible, such as the resurrection.
    Religion is unfortunately a human invention that humans have evolved to need. It is a bit like smoking, the first smokes get you addicted (offer the devil) and the later ones quell the craving (offer salvation).
    An atheist doing a good turn is doing it for free, a Christian is doing it for a ticket to heaven (also known as greed).

    1. haha i agree with every single thing you said here. excellent observation

    2. Just one thing. The virgin birth was not stolen from other religions, but rather is the result of a mistranslation. The prophecy contained in Isaiah 7:14 uses the workd "almah," meaning young woman, not "bethulah" meaning virgin. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek (the Septuagint), for some reason, the word "almah" got translated as "parthenos," meaning virgin--and thus the idiotic doctrine of virgin birth with all its later trappings.

    3. A young maiden at that was a virgin. Had to be or she better tell who laid with her, or she would be stoned as a whore.

    4. One way or the other, it was a mistranslation. Secondly, for earlier examples of virgin birth, see Horis, Isi and Osiris. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

    5. there is no mistranslation despite what you may have read. It is a virgin birth. Young woman is a mistranslation that some Bibles used, the early Christians know this already.

    6. Almah, the Hebrew word for young woman was mistranslated into the Greek parthenos. The word had nothing to do with virginity in biblical times and has nothing to do with it now. Bethulah is the Hebrew word for virgin.

      There is now your third ignorant post in a row.

    7. Thank you.

    8. Wrong Christians do good works because they love too, no amount of good works is going to get me in heaven. Jesus paid that ticket.

    9. So now you speak for all Christians.

      And just how do you know that "Jesus paid that ticket?" Because the bible tells you so and your stupidity impels you to believe it?

    10. mis infomed and lost you are. you should thank God that He lets you breath. God has given you people up to shameful ideas and thoughts.

    11. How do you know so much about god who by defintion is unknowable and whose existence you cannot prove.

      Sounds like just another ignorant spot.

    12. You said, "you should thank God that He lets you breath. God has given you people up to shameful ideas and thoughts."

      With an attitude like that, maybe you should thank your fellow man they let you continue to breath, and spew out your teachings of ignorance and hatred. Your kind has proven time and time again you can NOT be trusted to stay ethical towards your fellow humans.
      Shame on you and your hypocritical beliefs and attitude. How dare you hide your threats behind your God, you don't even have the bravery to own your own threats.

  22. Actually, that's DiMeglio.
    Both extremes are based in repulsive psychology - no doubt majorly sociopathic - even psychopathic. Eventually we will see each other and know - perhaps forcing some reform. Meanwhile a rational analysis will demonstrate that both social camps are based in personal power (growing proselytes) rather than about the subject matter and its resolution. In short, myth believer and myth believer both - you are the pigs that the Pearls are cast before, that will trample them and kill the messenger - which is central to the issue of dominance and the mission of evolution imo. To the rest of you, it is vital that you commit to a unified analysis of the universal natural intelligence system. And that is going to have to migrate away from the pandemoniacal.

    1. Would you mind letting us in on just what you're talking about?

  23. Every religion is a fiction, just to keep human beings disciplined and all these r just fairy tales but there is something supernatural. I dunno y ppl havent figured out yet and start chasing something which doesnt exist and make up crap

  24. Mr.Tallen, the Philokalia, My life In Christ by St.John Kronstadt, Unseen Warfare, the Ladder of Divine Ascent by St John Klimacos --there is much to read.

    1. And just what does this have to do with anything?

  25. The news has a report on a piece of parchment that has just been verified as authentic. Although the scrap is only the size of a business card it is being referred to as "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife". Written by Coptics in approx. 150CE, Jesus is quoted as saying "My wife...."

    This information came from the Harvard Divinity School website.

    1. I read about this; however Dr. King, the document's curator, cautions against using this as proof positive that Jesus was married. Jesus was quoted as saying a lot of things. Shame there were no recording devices or printing presses at the time.

  26. "and don't try to pretend that you do; I and anybody reading your posts know that you don't, that you don't want to and that you'd rather lie about it."

    You don't speak for anyone else, and certainly not me. I think you are the misinformed one here. As far as I know, theological historians are not even relevant anymore, but that is beside my point.
    One of the surest signs of BS is someone that claims that they are an authority on matters, and that others are not. Read up on logical fallacies. I don't even believe you are not a christian.

    1. Just where do you get the idea that theological (biblical) historians are not relevant anymore--for whatever that means. Read up on the consensus of biblical scholars before conjecturing.

      Like everyone else, you have the resources to double-check any of my assertions. So logical fallacies are irrelevant.

      You're right. I am not a Christian and furthermore, I am not a theist either.

  27. cleverly observed........i question the scholarship!it is as self-centered as you-know-who...!you choose to believe there was a historical jesus but deny his actions credited to him. so,what made him special to survive mythically or in folklore?where is the sense in that,in your opinion?

    1. From your posts, I doubt very seriously if you have the qualifications to question mainstream biblical scholarship and considering the reason why you question it ("it is as self-centered as you-know-who) the intelligence.

    2. again...cleverly observed,
      i'm not qualified to hold a case against mainstream scholarship but john allegro,edmund wilson & geza vermes are!translating texts found in qumran,they were shelved as they wanted to publish material that did not confirm roman-catholic teachings (the dead sea scrolls deception by m.baigent-r.leigh) .look it up & decide if that is the correct procedure to treat historical material that posits new questions.thats why i question the consensus as it blocks newly found
      material of the time & more decievingly,how they (de vaux & his hand picked team) did this!it sheds a different light on the origins of christianity & 'maybe' on the person jesus itself.

    3. The correct procedure is when you make allegations, in this case regarding the alleged suppression of translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls due to nonconformity with Catholic teachings, you provide the evidence; your provide the sources. Neither I nor anyone else needs to look this up.

  28. "jesus wept for christs sake !"

  29. What's next? "The Missing Years of Goldilocks?"

    1. To say emphatically that Jesus lived or that he is just a fairy tale suggests an agenda that has little to do with reason. Common sense does not conflict with the idea of a dissenting voice who received more attention than he deserved. There is more evidence suggesting that a man called Jesus did live than not. His life is too closely associated with the political realities of the time to completely dismiss the possibility that he actually lived. He is not another figure like Goldilocks. Unlike Goldilocks, his life has a context that is well known and is established as fact. The Romans did control the region. They did allow a King called Herod to sit as a ruler. Herod did appoint the leaders of the Temple that conflicted with Jewish tradition. The Jewish people of the time hated the Romans, Herod and the the Pharisees. These are verifiable facts from other sources than the Bible. This is the context of the life of Jesus. Goldilock's life has no historical, political or geographic context.

      Before you start calling me a religious nut, know that I am an atheist. Jesus as a man and Jesus as the son of God are two different and separate ideas.

  30. Mark emulated (aemulatio) Homer's Odyssey to create the life of Jesus. Mark also had other sources and many other characters where he borrowed from. There is no information about Jesus missing years because it is a myth. Mark didn't know Hebrew he knew Greek and he was a great writter and so he had access to Greek literature. Mark created the life of Jesus and Mark's gospel was used to create the other gospels. There is no historical Jesus. The early christians (gnostics) manipulated and still manipulate information to make christianity more believable.

    1. Mark's gospel was only partially used to create Matthew and Luke. It certainly was not used to create John. This is basic to biblical scholarship and you got it entirely wrong. So that brings into question the rest of your statements, especially your equation of early Christians with gnostics who were only one of the many sects and your claim that early Christians are still manipulating information. What proof do you have that the historical Jesus was a myth?

      P.S. You don't know Latin either. The past participle of aemulare is aemulatus and the first person singular is aemulato, not aemulatio. Throwing it in as you did in parenthesis is unnecessary and pretentious. As a matter of fact, how do you know that Mark used the Odyssey to create his gospel.

    2. How do you know that Mark couldn't speak Aramaic (not Hebrew)? The Gnostics were a group of early Christians and do not represent the entire Christian population of the time. That he created the life of Jesus is pure speculation and those who support this idea have no direct evidence to prove it. You could be accused of manipulating information to make Christianity more unbelievable.

    3. It's the same problem with Gibbon who let his hatred of Christianity color his scholarship--and accidentally producing a beautifully-written work of literature.

  31. logic and eality applied to a great jistorym nuch jore compellijhg than the eother stories,l Touching on his heritage and other mysteries,.

  32. All we actually can know about the historical Joshua/Jesus is this note from Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII - Chapter IV - Verse I: "BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there (12) So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain."

    1. Thanks for posting this excerpt, could you please cite the source you're quoting from?

    2. He did say Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter IV, Verse I--not that I find Josephus the most trustworthy source based upon the man's background and a number of disputed passages; however, in some instances, he's all we have and he does paint a picture of what life was like at the time. This is why I take exception to Helmer2's opening, "All we actually can know about the historical Joshua/Jesus . . .." The consensus of biblical scholars (which I take seriously, as these people have no agenda other than scholarship) is that "Jesus" was baptised by John the Baptist, he preached during the last three years of his life and he was crucified, none of which is contained in this excerpt.

    3. For all we know the historical Joshua/Jesus might very well have been beheaded on Mount Gerizzim, or when the troops of Pilate got their hands on him after his escape from Gerizzim. There is actually nothing historical that supports the theological beliefs you express concerning the baptism and crucifiction stories of christian mythology. The gospels are just stories created by unknown writers at an unknown time [most likely in the second century], not actual history.

      When the scholars admit that the best candidate for the title "historical Christ" is James the Just I´ll start taking them seriously.

    4. "Jesus'" baptism and crucifiction are not theological beliefs, but agreed to by the bulk of biblical historians. The support for the mainstream consensus of biblical scholars as to the three events I mentioned in my post, baptism, three-year ministry and crucifiction, is considerable. In addition, secular support for "Jesus" existence and crucifiction is provided by Josephus, Suetonious, Pliny the Elder, Lucian and Tacitus, all pre-eminent historians writing somewhat after the subject period. As a matter of fact when Tacitus makes a statement based on belief or hearsay, he flags it as such. There are no such flags in his squib about "Jesus" which also mentions Pontius Pilate. In his essay "How to Write History," Lucian rails against those who distort history to flatter their masters or fill in gaps with conjecture.

      Your post reveals a serious lack of education on the subject and your distorted view of scholarship is reflected in your last paragraph demanding that the majority of biblical scholars agree with your choice of candidate for the title "historical Christ" or else.

    5. Sorry, all three of these socalled events are theological beliefs. If you like you might also call them scholarly beliefs.

      There are no secular supports for the gospels "Jesus" existence whatsoever, which of course anyone educated and up to date on the subject can tell you. Neither Josephus, Suetonious, Pliny the Elder, Lucian or Tacitus hold any information to support the theological belief points you mention. Everyone of these sources have been thoroughly investigated and hold no information to support the theological/scholarly beliefs you mention.

      The crucifiction of the righteous one is actually an idea some early christian writer took from Plato.

      If you care to study the history of James the Just you´ll se why I hold him as a better candidate for the title "historical Christ" than the samaritan prophet. The story of James holds the origin of the story of the risen Christ.

    6. Get this straight. These are not theological (faith-based) beliefs, but historical ones. Your assertion that none of the secular authors I've mentioned holds any information to support the existence of "Jesus'" ministry and the crucifixtion displays an ignorance not only of these sources but of the relevant portions of the bible and how these sources relate to them and vice versa. This post and your last clearly demonstrate that you are not up to date on the subject in any way, shape or form and I resent the snow job as much as I resent your characterization of historical beliefs as theological ones (i.e., faith-based).

      Now if you want to go up against mainstream biblical scholarship (the people who know more about the subject than you) with the statement that James the Just (who died 62-69 A.D.) was the "Jesus" being written about, you must provide hard evidence, not expect others to do so. Merely contending that the story of James holds the origin of the story of the risen Christ is simply not good enough to qualify as scholarship.

    7. 'the dead sea scrolls deception' beholds a fine description of how scholars of this topic operate...surpressing material that doesn't fit the status quo & ridiculing men of the proffession(j.allegro) that don't comply.

    8. If this is supposed to be a statement about the existence of the historical "Jesus," it's inapplicable.

    9. “Get this straight. These are not theological (faith-based) beliefs, but historical ones. “

      There is no historicity in the three “events” you present. They are all based on theological/scholarly faith principles, not historical principles.

      “Your assertion that none of the secular authors I've mentioned holds any information to support the existence of "Jesus'" ministry and the crucifixtion displays an ignorance not only of these sources but of the relevant portions of the bible and how these sources relate to them and vice versa.”

      Only an ignorant person would use any of the secular authors mentioned as “proof” of the existence of the Jesus in the gospel saga, and that is something no serious scholar would do. None of the ancient secular authors mentions anything that confirms the theological beliefs you present. None of them ever relates to or confirms any relevant portion of the biblical mythology of the New Testament saga.

      “This post and your last clearly demonstrate that you are not up to date on the subject in any way, shape or form and I resent the snow job as much as I resent your characterization of historical beliefs as theological ones (i.e., faith-based). “

      Still the three “events” you present are based purely on theological/scholarly faith, not ever confirmed by any historical information. If you were up to date on ancient texts you´d know why I say that the story of James the Just holds the origin to the saga of the risen Christ.

      “Now if you want to go up against mainstream biblical scholarship (the people who know more about the subject than you) with the statement that James the Just (who died 62-69 A.D.) was the "Jesus" being written about, you must provide hard evidence, not expect others to do so. Merely contending that the story of James holds the origin of the story of the risen Christ is simply not good enough to qualify as scholarship. “

      I never said James was Jesus, I said he was the best candidate for the title “historical Christ”. The Samaritan prophet is the historical Joshua/Jesus who went up on a mountain with his followers and got executed [most likely beheaded] by the troops of Pilate. The Jesus character of the gospels never existed as historical person, a fact that is confirmed by mainstream biblical scholarship. Any serious scholar will tell you that. Therefor we must search for several historical characters when investigating the Jesus character of the gospel saga. The Samaritan prophet and James the Just are two of those historical characters who got merged into the pagan legend of Jesus Christ.

    10. By considering these three events theological (faith-based), you are the ignorant one. By stating that there is no historicity in the secular authors I mentioned, you are the ignorant one. By claiming that mainstream biblical scholarship confirms that the "Jesus" of the gospels never existed, you are the ignorant one and a liar to boot. By baldly asserting that the Samritan prophet and James the Just got merged into the pagan legend of Jesus, you are the ignorant one.

      You haven't provided one shred of evidence, only bald assertions, mostly erroneous, mostly ignorant. In short, you are completely unschooled in historical/biblical scholarship or for that matter any type of historical scholarship, considering your inability to understand the difference between historical claims and theological ones, and have no business making any claims period.

    11. Ask any serious scholar if they think that Jesus, as he is portrayed in the gospels, existed as a historical person and tell me what they answered. Mainstream biblical scholarship doesn´t seem to be of any particular interest for you, judging by your comments.

      You need to separate the Jesus of the gospel saga from the persons that he was made up from, if you don´t you end up calling others ignorant just because they don´t fall flatly on their faces before theological beliefs.

      The "events" you present as "historical" are just scholarly beliefs, if they were anything else we wouldn´t have this argument at all.

      If you study the secular writers you´ll find that they, in no way, confirms the existence of the Jesus of the gospel sagas. The do however tell us that there were a christian sect trying to burn Rome in the year 64 in an attempt to start an empire wide rebellion.

      They do tell us that the war that started in the year 66 was a reaction to the death of James the Just. They do tell us that a Jesus was brought before Albinus in an event later mimicked nearly to the point by the christian gospel saga. They do tell us that the apostles of the christian saga were ferocious jewish rebels much later made into pious missionaries. Josephus even tells us that James was called the Christ, if you remove the christian add-ons in the text.

      There is not one shred of evidence for the theological beliefs you present and yet you persist in calling me ignorant for not accepting these unfounded beliefs you carry so proudly. Well, I´d rather be ignorant than falling flat on the face before the erroneus theological beliefs you present as "historical events".

      Joshua/Jesus was a rebel executed [most likely beheaded] by the troops of Pilate because he tried to start a rebellion on Mount Gerizzim.

      James the Just was stoned to death, accused of heresy by the jewish high priest Ananias. Early christians had no problem in seeing James as the founder of christianity, if you care to read ancient texts.

    12. Trying reading Bart Ehrman, "Did Jesus Exist" and the Wikipedia article on the consensus of scholars as to the existence of the historical Jesus. It's you who knows nothing about mainstream biblical scholarship--and don't try to pretend that you do; I and anybody reading your posts know that you don't, that you don't want to and that you'd rather lie about it.

      I am sick of having you repeatedly term mainstream biblical scholarship which I subscribe to in this respect as a theological belief when it's everything but and for your information, I'm the farthest thing from a theist. In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

      You lack the background and the competence to comment on anything approaching biblical historicity. You've obviously never read any of the secular writers I have named, especially Tacitus, the pre-eminent historian of his time, who confirms the existence not only of "Jesus" but of Pontius Pilate--and if you're going to say that Tacitus or any of the secular authors I've mentioned don't confirm the historicity of "Jesus," you'd better be prepared to prove it--and I don't mean with more bald assertions, but with evidence.

      For your information Christus, a Greek translation of messiah, simply means anointed in oil in its mundane sense and a lot of people were called "Christ." So Josephus' application of such a title to James the Just is irrelevant. And while we're on Josephus, why do you believe him, especially regarding James the Just, and not the other secular sources I've mentioned? Also, why are you so inconsistent? First you contend that the historical "Jesus" is a theological fraud and then propose James the Just who died 62-69 a.d. as a candidate for this ostensibly fraudulent position. Which is it? And while we're at it, where do you get the idea that "Jesus" was beheaded or stoned? And which early Christians saw James the Just as the founder of Christianity? Once again, bald assertions are not scholarship.

      And get this straight, I call you ignorant, not because you disagree with me, but because you don't have the background to do so, only the bluster. I call you ignorant because you persist on terming the consensus of biblical scholars with far more education and a deeper understanding of their subject than you theological. Don't try scholarship. You're not good at it.

      I would love to have an intelligent dialogue on this subject, but you simply lack the knowledge to make this possible.

    13. I´ve read all of Ehrmans works, it´s just sad he can´t openly say that the samaritan prophet is the historical Jesus. I´ve actually read most of the serious and apologetic work in the field and had to dismiss a lot of errononeus conclusions that scholars do, mostly because they base too much on theological beliefs instead of historicity.

      I´ve never denied the existence of an historical Jesus, I merely point out who he was, something scholars obviously are too afraid to do.

      Once again I repeat that the Jesus of the gospel saga never existed as an historical person, which is something mainstream biblical scholarship agree with.

      I would gladly like to see where Tacitus confirms the existence of Jesus. I´ve read him, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Josephus and other writers a thousand times and never seen what you claim. Perhaps you read in something into Tacitus which just isn´t there? Perhaps that is what you do with the rest of the secular sources you mention too? Perhaps you can point out to me exactly where you think the secular sources confirm the gospels tales of Jesus?

      I hope you understand that there is a vast difference between a historical Jesus and the ahistorical Jesus of theological faith.

    14. I never stated or even meant to state that the secular sources I cited back up the gospel tales of Jesus--nothing does except the gospels themselves which are for the most part unreliable and in key respects, inconsistent. In other words, all my references have been to the historical Jesus (Jesus the man) and nothing else.

      In "Did Jesus Exist," with the exception of Lucian, Dr. Ehrman uses the secular sources I have named, in particular Tacitus and Josephus, to back up the mainstream consensus of "Jesus'" existence (and you know which Jesus I mean).

      However, saying Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist or that he was crucified is as theological as saying, "Yesterday, I went to church." Now, if a significance is put to the crucifiction, such as he died for our sins, that's something else.

      I can't speak for Dr Ehrman, he doesn't assert tha tthe Samaritan prophet was "Jesus" probably because he doesn't believe it--and while I'm no biblical scholar, I don't believe it either. That one passage in Josephus is not enough. Why not Apollonius of Tyana?

      I hope we understand each other.

    15. If we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth. Since the gospel of John singles out Jesus as a samaritan and the only known samaritan whose shoes fits is the samaritan prophet, mentioned by Josephus, he must also wear them. This is quite along with the principles of Ehrmans own historical method of telling what might be historical or not, as you very well know. We look for the odd, not the common.

      We have no way of knowing if the samaritan prophet was baptised by John, but nothing speaks for it. We have no way of knowing that he was crucified but history itself denies it, if you are to look upon the fate of other contemporary rebels.

      What has Tacitus in common with Cato? Any up to date debater should know this, do you?

      "Why not Apollonius of Tyana?"

      Why not?

    16. If you're referring to John 8:48, the name Samaritan is simply an epithet and tying this verse into Josephus is at best tenuous. Being odd does not necessarily mean being right. Ehrman also stresses the importance of using several different methods for verification, not just one. I can conjecture away all day, but it's worthless.

      Cato the Younger or Cato the Elder?

    17. If you´ve read your Cato the younger you wouldn´t have to ask that. I got the impression you were much more educated and qualified than me in question of ancient texts and letters, was I perhaps wrong in that assumption?

      Well, both Cato the younger and Tacitus mentions Chrestus. Now you can read Catos letters yourself and see who his Chrestus is and why we must dismiss Tacitus completely from the discussion.

      John 8:48 is what it is and says what it says. Being odd and yet confirming doesn´t necessarily mean it´s tenuous. Ehrman isn´t always right, you know.

    18. The Cato the Younger I know of was born ca 95 BC and died 46 BC, well before Tacitus was born. So what he has to do with Tacitus is beyond me. By the way, I resent riddles or being expected to read someone's mind. So don't try it with me. I'm direct and I expect others to be the same.

      And no, Tacitus cannot be dismissed from discussion. You're going to need considerably more than the tenuous connection limned in your previous post to establish any scholarly credibility to your claim.

      Show me one passage in Ehrman which is completely wrong. Also name one questionable aspect of his methodology.

    19. Tacitus has to be excluded from the discussion because he adds nothing to the quest for a historical Jesus.

      Pliny the younger has to be excluded from the discussion because he adds nothing to the quest for a historical Jesus.

      In fact: Every secular source used in apologetics has to be dismissed since none of them adds anything to the quest for a historical Jesus. None of them even mention him. If you think otherwise, present your case.

      Josephus cannot be excluded because he adds to our knowledge who the historical Jesus really was. We can, however, exclude the so-called TF from the quest for a historical Jesus since it obviously was manufactured in the fourth century, and this is where Ehrmans methodology is completely off. It´s highly questionable for a serious scholars method to even mention the TF. It shows that he is more concerned with apologetics than the quest for the man behind the myth.

      Both Tacitus and Cato writes about Chrestus. One might wonder how Cato might know about Chrestus if he died in the year 46 before modern time.

      I don´t expect you to read anyones mind, I expect you to read the secular sources, because they do not say anything of what christian apologetics claim they do. Get back to me when you´ve read them.

    20. Wrong. Tacitus, Pliny and the other sources I've named add vital backing, if not much information, to the consensus of the existence of a historical Jesus. So despite what you think, they cannot be excluded.

      You obviously have not read as much of Dr. Ehrman as you claim, for he has never engaged in apologetics (either in the current or older sense). And just what does TF stand for? Again, I don't like riddles.

      As for your comment on Cato the Younger, as I have explained before, the term Chrestus simply meant the anointed one in its mundane sense. So it is hardly unusual that both writers used the term and if you're positing that both of them were referring to the same person, that's complete nonsense.

      So far you haven't presented anything amounting to proof for any of your assertions. When you have some, please get back to me.

    21. Using the TF the way Ehrman done in the past is purely apologetic.

      And I guess Cato, judging from his letters and your comment, was afraid of being robbed by the anointed one in Rome some 60 years before modern time. Chrestus actually had a totally different meaning than apologetics will have it.

      We can dismiss all secular sources, except Josephus comment on the samaritan prophet Joshua/Jesus, since none of them provide any information concerning a historical Jesus.

      The whole burden of evidence in this case lie entirley on those claiming the existence of a historical Jesus. There is no way of proving his existence if you walk in the footsteps of the scholars. You have to carefully examine the evidence they omiss, and then you have to accept the samaritan prophet as the historical Jesus. You also have to accept, like many of the early christians, that the real founder of what would become todays pagan christianity is James the Just.

      Judginge by your overall comments you seemingly lack any of the necessary knowledge and education to engage in thip type of debate. Please get back once you´ve read and analysed all the secular sources yourself.

    22. "You also have to accept, like many of the early christians, that the real founder of what would become todays [sic] pagan christianity is James the Just." So I have to blindly accept what you cannot support.

      "There is no way of proving his existence if you walk in the footsteps of the scholars." I'd rather walk in the footsteps of scholars than give any credence to someone whose only credentials consist of unsupported contentions. Judging by your overall comments, you don't know what you're talking about. On the other hand, scholars do--and it's pathetic how you vainly attempt to place yourself above them.

      Get back to me when you have proof--and I don't mean suspicion.

      P.S. You still haven't told me what TF stands for.

    23. I´ll get back to you once you´ve decided to study enough to participate in this kind of debate.

    24. O.K. I'll bite. Just which ones of Cato's letters are you referring to? I would like to read them.

    25. If you had been a really educated and up to date debater you would have corrected me long ago. An up to date and educated scholar/debater would have know that the letter in question was written by Cicero. Sorry for that maneuvre but you really need to read more before you enter this kind of conversation.

      However, any serious scholar would know about this letter and then know why they should not ever use something so incredibly tenuous as Tacitus "Chrestus" mention as any sort of reference to the existence of a historical Jesus. It might work as an apologetic act when adressing to the uneducated mob, but not when adressing those seriously researching roman writers and their works.

      The part I talk about is here: Epistulae ad familiares, II. viii. VIII.

      Cicero, proconsul, to M. Caelius Rufus, Athens, July 6, 51 b.c.

      "Well! Do you really think that this is what I commissioned you to do, to send me reports of "the gladiatorial pairs," "the adjournment of trials," "burglary by Chrestus," and such tittle-tattle as nobody would have the impertinence to repeat to me when I am at Rome ? " End quote.

      In the year 51 before modern time Chrestus, the anointed one as you explained the tert, was committing burglary in Rome. [Seems like Chrestus really was a true source of inspiration to TV-evangelists everywhere.]

      Strangely enough it could be used by mainstream biblical scholars to "prove" that a historical Jesus had a career as a burglar in Rome (49 years before his alleged "birth") and that a secular source also confirms this information.

      When we put the secular sources under a microscope and examine what they really say, they actually say something quite different than what christian apologetics wants you to belive.

      Reading ancient sources, secular and non-secular, and putting them in a historical context is nothing you do in a day or a month, it takes years of reading and never taking nothing for granted. I´ve been doing this for the last twenty years so get back to me when you´ve done your time and tell how you´re doing.

      I can assure you it´s most rewarding work when it comes to knowing more about the era and the people in it, like the samaritan prophet/failed rebel Joshua/Jesus and James the Just aka the Christ.

    26. If you mean Cicero, then you damn well state it. I don't play games. I don't read minds. So what if Cicero used the term Chrestus? And just how does this render Tacitus tenuous? Not once have you produced anything of any substance, just a lot of jibber jabber.

      [portion of text removed by the moderator]

    27. So what if Cicero used the term Chrestus...

      So what if Gabriel Hazon has the archangel Gabriel telling Simon the Christ that he will be resurrected in three days...

      So what if the gospel of John points out a samaritan as Joshua, a person who can be linked only to the samaritan prophet...

      So what of Ehrmans latest work is so sloppy, badly researched and incoherent that it´ll ruin his career...

      So what if only James the Just can be the origin of gospel Christ as a teacher of righteousness...

      So what if you don´t have a clue about anything concerning the item you´re trying to debate...

      Twenty years.

    28. 1. Once again, so what if Cicero mentioned pilfering by a person named Chrestus? Chrestus was a fairly common name.

      2. Hazon Gabriel simply reflects the typical Jewish apocalyptic view of its day when resurrection stories were common. There is nothing special about it.

      3. We've been through John 8:48. As I've stated, Samaritan was a term of contempt connoting heretic, unbeliever, devil. Nowhere in this passage is Joshua mentioned. If you have another in mind, you should cite it. Don't play games.

      4. Which work of Ehrman are you talking about and whose opinions are you referring to. If they're yours, you're in no position to judge. It hasn't ruined his career yet.

      5. And just what substantial proof can you offer to support your statement that James the Just was the origin of the gospel Christ as a teacher of righteousness.

      And don't give me the twenty years crap. I don't buy it, just as I don't buy any of your screwball contentions.

    29. 1. So many anointed ones then. So we have no reason whatsoever to believe that Tacitus says anything of what apologetics claim. It could just be any Chrestus at all.

      2. There´s really nothing special about the samaritan prophet Joshua/Jesus, except that he is the historical person behind the gospel story of the executed Jesus.

      As it it wasn´t enough to borrow one Joshua/Jesus, the unknown gospel writers also had to borrow the whipping scene from Josephus: "But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him."

      What a mess the composite Jesus character of christian mythology is. Almost as messy as the Jesus of theological belief.

      3. A samaritan is always a samaritan, except for those into apologetics.

      4. It will.

      5. Since you don´t listen there´s really no point in continue. You won´t read, you don´t like riddles and yet you continue to defend the scholarly belief in an unknown historical Jesus even though it´s a riddle how they can get away with is without naming the samaritan prophet.

      Try reading about James the Just instead of littering debates with your uneducated ranting.

      6. You wouldn´t by any chance also happen to be a creationist? Proof does not matter to you since you seem to buy every screwball scholarly contention uncritically, as long as it fit into your own beliefs.

    30. 1. No it couldn't, especially when he mentions Pontius Pilate in the same squib.

      2. This is just another one of your baseless claims for which your quote provides no support whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the event described took place around 62AD.

      3. Non-responsive.

      4. Baseless and non-responsive.

      5. It's very clear to me how mainstream biblical scholars can get away with not naming the samaritan prophet: there's no evidence for it.

      6. No, I am not a creationist and furthermore, I despise everything creationism stands for. So I would appreciate it if you would retract the allegation contained in your paragraph 6.

      P.S. From everything you've written, you're the screwball.

    31. 1. So, it´s the samaritan prophet after all then.

      2. Yes it did. This, and more from Josephus books, found it´s way into the gospels when they were written during the second and third century.

      3. Not at all.

      4. No.

      5. Yes there is. And if they name the historical Jesus for who he is, then the whole of christianity sinks like Titanic.

      6. You argue like a true creationist, I´m used to facing Jesus-creationists so I know one when I see one.

      At least I´m not afraid to point out the historical Joshua who went up on a Mount and got executed by the troops of Pilate. I´d rather be a screwball than a scared theologian not daring to mention the obvious.

    32. Reading through your exchange with this Robert guy and thinking it over for a few days jogged a memory I have of someone I knew once. He was from a rich, conservative family who sent him to Catholic boarding school. He went on to become a stockbroker and an avowed atheist at the time I met him, but he could not countenance the proposition that Jesus as he new him in school, never existed.

      And though all my comments are sure to be buried and to no avail, I think it's worth mentioning that no amount of reason will get through. Some people have too much of their own past, their own pain or whatever invested, tangled up in the idea of god, and unless they consent to untangle those ambivalent thoughts and feelings over a long, essentially a deconversion, period, it's no good thinking you can get anywhere with them.

      This, I have found is true for any idea. It's not god or Jesus you're attacking, in their mind, it's something far more precious, it's their very self. I can only imagine that in his own mind he feels it a betrayal of his very self to admit he's being irrational, to just back down.

      It truly is weird to live in a world where atheists believe in Jesus. I think you can only pity them and move on, you'll have to eventually, it's just sad.

    33. No, it's simply scholarship and nothing more.

    34. Of course it is dear, of course. We all understand, you're being perfectly rational.... of course you are, why can't anyone see that.

    35. Now which of my statements do you find irrational? And once again, this is a public forum and I will post whenever I want.

    36. Nothing you say has anything to do with scholarship, it has to with your title admiration and theological beliefs. But you have a point though, most scholarship in this field is very simple and ruled more by christian dogma than real scientific work and curiosity.

    37. If you think I have any theological beliefs, that's another delusion to add to your quiver, the first one being that you consider yourself anything approaching a biblical scholar. By the way, how's your Coptic Greek, your biblical Greek, your Aramaic and your Latin?

    38. The idea of selling an unproven historical Jesus by refering to mainstream biblical scholars without any arguments whatsoever for the product they are selling is like a person without a ticket waiting for a train that never comes.

      Ah, the old language question. Always used by undercover christians for apologetic reasons. Do you also say Frodorick?

    39. If mainstream biblical scholars have no arguments to support the existence of Jesus the man, why are there so many books with so much evidence? On the other hand, what have you produced? Like any other academic discipline, mainstream biblical scholars have nothing to "sell" except their scholarship. So don't try to cover up your lack of convincing evidence with claims of a theological conspiracy.

      And while we're at it, you've obviously not read Dr. Ehrman's introduction to "Did Jesus Exist?" which is anything but apologetic as you claim.

      As you are trying to pass yourself off as a biblical scholar, I can ask about your qualifications, language being among them. Your elusive response says everything.

      I'm still waiting for you to retract your charge of my being a creationist.

    40. well,you are some sort of 'creationist' as you create an atmosphere of
      being 'up-there' with supreme knowledge which no one except yourself posesses.......& all along you only have an opinion regarding this topic,unless ehrmann provides hard evidence like him & jesus on a polaroid(or you & jesus under a x-mas tree swapping gifts)!you like to scrutinize people with demanding evidence than you yourself can supply!

    41. Any knowledge that I possess is available to anyone who cares to do the research. The rest of your post is gibberish.

    42. whatever.....

    43. I agree with you.

    44. Well, as usual I'm going to try to answer my own question and see if it's at Guttenberg, or some other archive; unless he wrote it out by hand.

      I just wanted to save myself a little effort.

      I wish people would think before posting, just a bit of lateral thought now and then, just a bit.

  33. Jesus' teachings were basically Buddhist teachings about meditation and enlightenment. The language he used can be understood in this context '... the kingdom of heaven is at hand" etc. In the 'missing years' he was in India.His name was Issa. He returned to India after the so-called 'resurrection'.

    1. It does little good to pile myth upon myth. In the end all you have is a pile of myth.

    2. Just how do you know this? Complete nonsense.

    3. The Buddhist connection is the thesis of Ch. Lindtner's "Jesusisbuddha" website. He identifies Buddhist text as identical with canonical Gospels.

      The India theory is problematic. Much has been said about it.

      But here's a hint: look up the picture of Dafni Pantokrator and focus on the forehead symbol. It can be seen on many other early Jesus frescos. Then look up pictures of Vaishnava tilakas.

  34. I think Jesus was a Palestinian Time Traveller Magician Jew

    1. ... maybe he was a time lord? O_O

  35. something about the narration makes this so boooooring

  36. Jesus wasn't real, it's missing because they never wrote this part of the story, just people making up more crap to fill in the gaps.

    1. What do you mean by real? That he never existed?

  37. I'm confused. Was Jesus a Palestinian Jew?

    1. The Wikipedia article will tell you.

  38. all this polarizing egoic mind stuff and chatter....this is the bane of the world...consider finding what unites you...not what divides a rightousness life and finish your sojourn on earth as a legacy of love!

  39. Jesus story is my favorite fairy tale!

  40. The missing years of Jesus are fully detailed in the "Urantia Book", for those that want to know more about the missing years of Jesus this is the book to read....

    1. That fraud.

  41. Thank you soooooo much for the best web site in the wholw World Wide Web


  42. this is NOT objective. this is NOT worth the time. this, in fact, is produced by agenda-driven liars with very few scruples. if you watch this and take it seriously, i defy you to research any particular tidbit that the producers felt important enough to repeat 3x.

    that's a falsity, your honor....
    --ordell roby
    --really, is it an untruthitude?
    --judge judy
    roger that.

  43. The bible is a very misunderstood beast and most of it is in code. It tells you over and over again that certain passages are for "those with eyes that see and ears that hear" Whenever you see that phrase you are about to enter the land of parable and metaphor and without the code you are lost. I highly recommend an extensive knowledge of the dead sea scrolls and the assorted apocrypha before attempting to decode it. The DSS's clearly explain the codes. Certain names like Marry and Joseph are in fact titles of office for instance. Ever wondered why a Joseph is always the head of the household for instance? Even Angelic names refer to official positions within the temporal temple hierarchy. When Marry is visited by the Angel Gabriel she is in fact receiving a specific human visitor from the Jerusalem or Kumran temple (depends on the interpretation).

    1. I don't know where you're getting your information, but you don't know what you're talking about. Biblical code is complete nonsense and your post is an insult to the intelligence.

    2. I'm getting it directly from John allegro - the one maverick member of the translation team that actually tried to get the stuff translated rather than burying it as the other catholic interpreters managed to do for over 50 years.

      edit: the DSS's
      2nd edit: and I've actually read them all. Have you?
      3rd edit: and I've read the Nag Hammadi texts as well. That pretty much sums up the apocrypha so if I'm not qualified to express an opinion I guess no one is in your book?

    3. "It [The Bible] tells you over and over again that certain passages are for 'those with eyes that see and ears that hear.'" Just where does it tell us this and just how does it relate to an alleged code. And no, the names Mary and Joseph are not titles. "When Marry [sic] is visited by the Angel Gabriel she is in fact receiving a specific human visitor from the Jerusalem or Kumran temple (depends on the interpretation)." You're right. It's a matter of interpretation--and a rather crazy, self-serving one at that. Now what John Allegro has to do with this mishmash is beyond me.

    4. That was the lamest rebuttal in the history of attempted scholarly non-rebuttals.

      Honestly now...

    5. Calling it lame is not a rebuttal, but a smoke screen. Honestly now, if you assert, it's up to you prove. You made the statement about certain passages in the bible being for "those with eyes to see and ears to hear." Now it is up to you show where they occur and how they relate to alleged codes. You made the comments about the names Mary (which you seem unable to spell) and Joseph being not praenomens but rather titles; it's up to you to support it. You made the statement about John Allegro (and yes, I know who he was), now it's up to you to explain what he has to do with this cockamamy idea. Don't try that again on me.

    6. 1) Robert I just Typed "For those with eyes that see" into google and was inundated with biblical references. Stop trying to make me chew your food for you.

      2) "eyes and ears" is an ancient technique used also in the Norse Sagas and by Celtic bards and the technique is well known and accepted by all academia. It's not even contentious. See - even in the past knowledge was ring-fenced.

      3) John Allegro helped translate the scrolls. try reading them, they are freely available.

      I really don't see why you have a problem with purely human authors placing codes into a temporal book in 1st century Palestine considering the political environment of the time. Are you even aware of how complicated things were? Herod was a hated Arab puppet king,
      you had a Vichy French thing going with the Pharisees and the other Temple sect the Saducces (upper crust guys) hated them terribly. You had an entire crew of holy zealots who broke from Jerusalem and moved Qumran/Kumran and Massada because they felt the rest of their countrymen were not zealous enough in their devotion to the word of god.

      Are you even aware of the revolts of the time and the eventual 2nd sacking of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans due to unmistakably political uprisings by the local population?

      The collection of books in question were composed or compiled in this mellieu and were most assuredly contentious and radical enough to place certain figures names into code for their own survival.

      Try reading a bit before you throw your toys out of the pram again.

    7. It is up to you to cite the requisite passages and demonstrate how they evidence the existence of "codes." Merely stating that "eyes and ears" is an ancient technique in Norse sagas doesn't cut it. It's an ancient technique accomplishing what? Where do we find examples of it? How does this technique directly relate to the bible?

      You still haven't explained how John Allegro (and as I informed you in my last response, I know he was one of the translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls) relates to this mess.

      Stating that the volatile situation in the first and second centuries A.D. implies biblical codes is beyond idiotic. Once again, if you think there are "codes", you must provide their location and the reasons you think so. Asserting their existence won't wash. And by the way, what do you mean by "the collection of books in question?" if you mean the New Testament canon, you have some serious rethinking, for it was compiled by Athanasius in 367, after the events you describe.

      If you have hard evidence, place it on the table. Don't expect me or anyone else to go on a fishing expedition on your behalf.

      I have a problem with cranks like you making statements that they can't support and getting their backs up against the wall when asked to do so.

    8. The funny thing about this Robert is that I suspect that we are more in alignment on this issue than in disagreement.

      My problem is that as I sit here I am surrounded by over 5000 books at last count. I actually hate using the internet as a source and I am now into my 4th decade studying this very issue. And I have no religious bias axe to grind. I actually had read the DSS an Nag Hamaddi texts long before I could approach the Bible due to my own internal prejudices. I'm just a scholar looking for answers.

      The irony is that I haven't even made any contentious claims. FFS I can remember a 101 course on Snorri Sturulson at Tulane University in the 80's that covered the eyes and ears stuff so it's not really an issue to be fought over. Even the Masons use it.

      Your assertion that the volatile situation in Palestine implies biblical codes is idiotic does in fact alarm me. Are you negating the entire course of human history in that one statement? This is our standard operating procedure in times of occupation.

      And the collection of books in question query is probably more alarming as it demonstrates a Wikipedia level of understanding of the issue.

      I believe what you meant to say was the Council of Nicea in 331 AD. That is the place you want to look for the fight over which of the 40+ gospels would eventually get whittled down to the 4 we have now.

    9. You have not provided one piece of hard evidence to support your contention of the existence biblical codes. And once again, your assertion that the voltile situation in Palestine implies them is as idiotic as your inane justification of their existence in the name of standard operating procedure in times of occupation. Once again, where is your evidence?

      Just out of curiosity, do these "codes" appear throughout the New Testament or only in the Synoptic Gospels, each of which was written at a different time and in a different place? Do we find any in Thessalonians 1, the earliest book of the New Testament? As a matter of fact, do we find them in any of the epistles?

      And wrong, nothing about formation of the canon appears in the records of the First Council of Nicea , for by the time it met, Athanasius' codification had already been accepted. So please, don't try to snow me, I resent it.

      And by the way, you still haven't stated what you mean by "the collection of books in question."

      Once again, with all your 5,000 books, you cannot furnish one piece of hard piece of evidence of a biblical code.

    10. Er... robert, Athanasius's cannon was only dealt with at the 2nd council of Nicea 30 + years later.

      But I will take a day out tomorrow and manually collate references from the synoptics (DSS) if that will make you happy. I suspect it's all available via google but I try to resist that temptation.

      The collection of books is the Gospels btw. Sorry, I assumed it was obvious from my posts.

    11. The Second Council of Nicea took place in 787, four hundred years (not 30+) after the first. The full agenda which we have shows that you don't know what you're talking about. By the way, canon in this sense has just one n. Once again, please don't try to show me. I resent it.

      References are not enough. You must prove the existence of codes with hard evidence. If you can't do that, save yourself the trouble.

      If you meant the Gospels, why didn't you simply say so rather than employ the circumlocution "the books in question." And by Gospels, do you mean all four of the synoptics or the apocryphal as well.

    12. Ok thanks for saving me a days wasted work as I'm rather busy and I would have had to work my way through The Community Rule, Damascus Document and Habakkuk Commentary in order to hopefully satisfy. If that isnt possible so be it.

    13. I take this to mean that you cannot prove the existence of codes through hard evidence.

    14. Forgot to mention. He has a problem with "rules of evidence".

    15. You had me until you brought up the code thing. The rest was not bad. Although Qumran is thought to have existed at least a hundred years earlier and some of the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are dated earlier than the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. It is too vague a time to make too sweeping a statement.

    16. Daniel loves the maverick. He's the free thinker. The rest of us are drones.

    17. I'd rather be an accurate drone than an inaccurate free thinker.

    18. Inaccurate free thinker. There is a freedom in thinking whatever you want. Truth as an ideology not based in fact. The universe in mine and it can be anything I want it to be. Has a comfy feel.

    19. Come on Daniel. Why is the head of the family named Joseph? Why is the husband of the family named Bob? Or Jack...or Daniel? Illogical. In those times the head of the family was always the man. Joseph is and was a common Aramaic name.

    20. and you Know this how?

  44. religion is the cause of all wars.

    1. Some wars. The Romans could care less what religion you had. Just pay your damn taxes. And when the "barbarians" finally sacked Rome do you really think they wanted them to worship whatever they worshipped? Genghis Khan wasn't much of an evangelist either. He wanted power. Its a cute argument but isn't born out in an in depth study of history.

    2. You forgot one thing after taxes--don't make trouble. However, let's not also forget the Crusades, the witch burnings, the Inquisition (600 years of it)--aren't these wars of a sort?

    3. Not defending religion's role, just understanding that we are driven by more than one thing. One dimensional thinking can restrict one from a true understanding of the complexities of history and current events.

    4. No, I'm not another another Gibbons, but religion is an awfully huge factor, too huge for my taste.

  45. another religious fairytale..

  46. Religion, used to instill hope in desperate times.
    self relief that bad things don't happen to good people for no reason.
    insures cooperation of a society to be moral and unified

    Reply with more interesting descriptions or reasons why religion was created.

    1. So what? It's a reta*ded form of non-thinking.

  47. no god, everyone should read about the Egyptian myth Horus, and the many other similar figures in history...i guess Jesus Christ has a nice enough ring to it, that his name stuck.

  48. I would rather drive roofing nails into my skull than watch this. Serious.

  49. Why would god hide his son to the populace for 18 yrs. Read between the lines!

    1. Assuming there is a god, how do you know that "Jesus" was god's son? This is only one treatment. You don't need to read between the lines.

    2. I'm with you roberttallen1. No one knows that Jesus was god's son or if the historical/magician Jesus even existed. The problem is Xians swallow the Bible's malarchy and think they're right. From what I've read over the years, it seems he (Jesus) was an ordinary human being who was a hell of a good bullshitter-trickster looking for attention. He sure got it, attention that is !

    3. Please give due credit to his publicists.

    4. Read between the lines...and then make up stuff? There is nothing but blank space between the lines. I looked. Nothing there. Notta.

  50. As far as I'm concerned, there's a decent probability that some ascetic Jew of the appropriate time period managed to inspire enough people that a small cult developed around him.

    I'd be interested in pursuing further exactly what prompted the cult to develop over a couple of hundred years into the religion that Constantine decided to capitalize on.

    It's scary to think what might happen in a couple of hundred years with scientology. And we *know* that 'religion' was dreamed up by a sci-fi writer named L. Ron Hubbard.

    1. I find it hard to describe "Jesus" as ascetic, apocalpytic definitely.

      For a detailed treatment of your inquiry, I suggest "The New Testament" by Bart Ehrman.

    2. What prompted the cult? don't know.

      Could it be pagan stuff?

    3. It's all ultimately derived from "Pagan Stuff" to be fair. And you can look to ancient Egypt for most of it and Sumeria for the rest. The Lord's Prayer, 10 commandments and the psalms are taken directly from Egyptian sources like the coffin texts (Book of the dead). Stuff like " “O Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven.” The flood myth was derived from Babylonian via Sumerian legends of Ziusudra for instance. I could go on for days and days... Amen!

      The Hebrews copped their history from the Babylonians during their enforced sojourn after the sacking of Jerusalem in 587BC. The Babylonians obviously copped theirs from the Sumerian so it's all derivative really.

    4. Well it is not actually copied, nor derived but maybe borrowed.

      The link I put on goes in depth, on the home page of my link, bottom right click on..."Lets go see." A lot of info available, scholarships etc:

    5. Read in New Scientist this week - Sun worship linked to epileptic episodes. Hutan Ashrafian, surgeon and medical historian thinks Tutankhamun and his family may have had a heritable form of temporal lobe epilepsy. This would have explained his feminine features (large chest and wide hips), the temporal lobe is involved with the release of hormones involved in sexual development. People with this type of epilepsy are know to experience hallucinations and religious visions, particularly after exposure to sunlight.
      ''visions on sunny days encouraged the start of the earliest recorded monotheistic religion'' says the doctor. Akhenaten raised status of Atun - the sun, after his visions.
      Obviously only an educated guess, as good a beginning as any I suppose. :)

    6. I used to have religious visions after ingesting orange sunshine. It went away after about eight hours. Sixties were good to me.

    7. Oh, I've been aware of the myth sources for a long time. What I'm interested in is why the cult of this one character became enough of a focal point in that narrow time span to become politically useful (the historic aspect of the politicization of a religious cult).

      I'm not interested in a 'supernatural' explanation, nor what was added later. I'm interested in the human story of how this particular myth began and evolved.

    8. I would suggest that similarities with the Roman Sol Invictus cult and elements of Mithraism enabled the construction of an easy alloy religion that Constantine recognised he could easily control if he made it the official religion of the empire and then placed himself at the top - a bit like Henry 8th did later.

    9. Again, I suggest "The New Testament" by Bart Ehrman and "Lost Christianities" by the same author.

    10. Great example. I don't think Jesus made up the religion but his followers, who were in awe of an extraordinary intellect and charisma, could easily have built a cult around their memories of his teachings and possible demise. Things like that don't come out of thin air. I just had quite the session on another doc and it just amazed me how an observation could turn into an entire conspiracy to subjugate and maybe kill most of the citizens of this planet. If that type of extrapolation could happen now why could it not happen two thousand years ago?

    11. I even wonder if he was an extraordinary intellect and charisma. His coterie was small and just about everything known about him amounts to hearsay, including his "philosophy." Assemble everything and you end up with a mass of contradictions and glaring inconsistencies. Doctrines seem to have been made up on the fly to suit the occasion. Have you read "The Making of Moo" by Nigel Denis? With one difference, a lot about that play seems to mirror so much that I have read about "Jesus."

    12. I have no idea about the intellect part, but charisma is what makes a cult.

      There's a reason Brad Pitt is a star, and it ain't his intellect, trust me!

    13. And it's not talent either.

    14. Brad Pitt. Him smart.

      Charisma has a way that intellect, physical prowess, or money can't seem to overcome. I don't get it but I have been influenced by it. Wish I had it....over other ones except intellect. I like being smart.

    15. Perhaps my experiences are narrow, but I have never met one charismatic figure in my life--perhaps I'm immune to it--but I've sure met a number of effective PR people.

    16. If you mean that romanticized person who glows with some inner power as a charismatic figure, I have to say I've never met one either. However, there are those who seem to display leadership qualities and persuasive abilities that the average person doesn't have. PR abilities can be learned but some seem to come by it naturally. I could see Jesus as a person that is easily likeable who had things to say about the Roman occupation and the apparent sycophants in the temple. That he was effective in phrasing the feelings that the average person held about the leadership could be the reason that he was remembered and a cult formed around him.

    17. Are you familiar with Edward Bernays? If he had been around in "Jesus'" lifetime, I'll bet that Christianity wouldn't have been the puny cult that it was--and "Jesus" would not need to have said or done much. This guy was all the apostles rolled into one

    18. Since I originally brought up the word 'charisma' in relation to Jesus (and Brad Pitt!) here's a better example.

      Have you ever seen the televised debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy? Guess who had charisma!

    19. I saw it at the time it came out and for me, neither of them had much charisma.

    20. No, robert, for you neither would. But for everyone else, it was obvious.

    21. That's because I try to be rational. I was not taken in by either of them.

    22. That debate had as many people listening on the radio as were watching on TV. Here's the interesting thing. Kennedy was thought to have won the debate by those watching. Nixon was thought to have won the debate by those listening.

    23. Interesting comment. I just couldn't stand either of the two.

    24. I remember the debates when I was young. I can tell who didn't have the charisma. Nixon was not easy to like. Kennedy had the looks and easy flowing self assurance. I think that many voted for him, not for his platform, but because of the way he carries himself. Nixon is not a camera person or the crowd pleaser. Kennedy could work a crowd.

      Its a quality that defies quantification. Hitler had it, although mystifying to me. Jimmy Swaggart has it. Don't get that one either. but its not my opinion that counts. I would just shake my head and leave. He knows how to control a crowd in a way few others do. Of course, it has to be a crowd that likes the message before hand, but he manages to build a frenzy that can affect the casual observer. Why some people can do it, I don't know.

      I just watched a movie starring Morgan Freeman. He possess a soothing calmness that most people find irresistible. I don't know anyone that doesn't like the guy, even though they don't know him.

      I've often thought that there is the possibility that a man named Jesus, could have had the same qualities, whose life was cut short, but was remembered by a small group of followers. These followers were so affected by what he said and the manner in which he said them that they would talk about the man and his message to anyone who would listen. His exploits were embellished till less than one hundred years later we begin to see the re-invented man that we know now. No real direct proof, but the short span of time that this cult grew after his alleged death and the context in which he lived and died, makes his existence as a man highly plausible.

    25. Of course, we must consider the intelligence of the crowd. I don't think Jimmy Swaggart could do much with a crowd of church-going biologists such as Kenneth R. Miller. In other words, the people have to be pretty ignorant to begin with. In the same light, there's William Jenning Bryan who was even more successful.

      Hitler discovered his one talent quite by accident. Do you know the story?

      As for Morgan Freeman, it's simply his deep voice, but considering the thousands of movies I've watched in my lifetime, I've seen and heard it all before. Paul Robeson and Rex Ingraham were just as good. It's not that I don't like him; it's just that I'm indifferent.

      I'm surprised that no one, not even Kateye, has mentioned women. Bette Davis had it, perhaps because she didn't fit the mold. Ida Lupino had it. Much as I despise her, Amy Semple Macpherson had it. Michelle and Sarah are simply too disgusting to have it, except when in front of the Billy Swaggart crowd--and Billary and Condolezza are completely out of the ballpark.

      Have you read "The Bostonians" of Henry James. The heroine is a pretty, young girl with no great intelligence whose only talent is an involuntary one for drawing a crowd, but who's really indifferent (not hypocritical) to the cause she is supposed to be promoting and which she gets roped into.

    26. You don't have to be ignorant to be swayed by charisma. You do, however, have to be open to the influence of the person. There are people whose personal presence is magnetic, even when you don't necessarily agree with them.

      I was specifically referring to the personal charisma that leaders had to have prior to the 20th century, when one had to be in their presence to be swayed by their influence. Nowadays, one also has to come across well onscreen.

      Jack's comment summed up exactly what I was trying to convey.

    27. I disagree. When intelligence and education (the antipodes of ignorance) enter, charisma disappears. If people had stopped to analyze what Jimmy Swaggert and Adolph Hitler were SAYING, they would have had no followers, but I agree presentation has a lot to do with it which is why Aron Ra does not come off as well as he could for who in middle class America would trust someone who looks like a refugee from a biker's club?

      As I say, I've never been swayed by what is called charisma, except perhaps on the screen, but that ends with the movie. But then I'm only a 20th-21st century person.

    28. Incredibly, I had just watch an episode of the western "Wagon Train" seconds before I read your post. It guest starred Bette Davis and as I was watching it I marvelled at the dignity in which she carried herself and thought that she was another great example of the type of person that I had posted about.

      These individuals have certain talents that seem to affect those around them. An infectious smile or laugh, good looks, strength of will and unbridled enthusiasm to name a few. Morgan Freeman has his voice and a dignified mannerism. What affects one person in a positive manner towards that person, however, may leave someone else indifferent or even angry. It's a complex phenomenon.

    29. The thing is she had intelligence and chutzpah to go with it--and she was certainly unique--and yes, there was a certain natural dignity about her no matter what type of a role she was playing (and she sure played a variety). On the other hand, Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff and the like have none except for what is called "animal intelligence" (a real insult to the animal kingdom). From the venerable song, "Hurray for Hollywood where you're terrific if you're even good."

    30. So, would you think Jesus had Jimmy Swaggart charisma or Bette Davis charisma?

    31. Don't know, not enough information, too many contradictions--but Mel Gibson is definitely out and thank god for that (so to speak). In Mark, Christ tells people not to reveal his divinity, while in Luke, he uses it as a publicity gag.

    32. Swaggart and Popoff are selling a product. They may be completely different behind the scenes. They know their target audience and cannot allow anyone to see them as they really are. They may well have more intelligence than what they portray. Swaggart, especially, has a resilience that may have more than just luck going for it. He couldn't fleece you or I but he knows who he can fleece. I see a cold and calculating individual when I see his act on TV.

    33. Oh that they both are and let's add the late (thankfully) Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts. How about Benny Hinn and Ken Ham? I know you can add considerably to the list. As I posted to Kateye, when intelligence and education enter, charisma exits, except perhaps for watching a movie or play and then its only ephemeral.

      P.S. Jack, I can't believe that someone as educated and knowledgable as you would commit two solecisms in one sentence.

  51. Intellectual speculation is still speculation. The believer will accept it as truth, the skeptic will reject it as false, the videographer will use it to make money off the believe and the skeptic.

    1. I am the furtherst thing from a believer, but based upon what I have read from true biblical scholars (i.e., those whose only agenda is scholarship), I accept the existence of the historical Jesus--BUT THAT"S AS FAR AS IT GOES.

  52. Great documentary. Lots of haters in the comments below, it's like having one of those party pooper militant new-atheist friends, sheesh lighten up you stiff necked atheistic scribes and pharisees.

    1. We know you can keyboard. Now, can you keyboard intelligently?

      P.S. You sound like a pharisee.

    2. "Party pooper militant new-atheist friends"?

      What kind of parties do you have? praise the lord every 2 seconds, praying, eerily talking in tongues?

      Anything to liven up your stale, boring, groveling to a invisible deity parties.

    3. those sound like my kind of friends! the party pooper new-atheist ones, that is!

  53. How can the imaginary life of an imaginary person be one of the greatest mysteries of our time? Seriously that is sad.

    1. While much of his life is imaginary, the consensus of biblical scholars is that he existed, but AS A MAN ONLY.

    2. robertallen1 you have admitted that he is a real historical figure, now we have recordings of what this figure said.

      Do you reject his teachings and dismiss him as a liar? do you accept his teachings and accept him as a speaker of truth?

      You have a difficult problem to face, now that you believe he is a real historical figure because to justify yourself you with your actions basically need to call him either crazy, or a liar.

    3. No, we have no "recordings" of what he said, only a lot of contradictory hearsay written long after the fact. To make it clear to you, I accept his existence AS A MAN (READ HISTORICAL FIGURE) AND NOTHING ELSE! To try to make it clearer I DO NOT ACCEPT HIS ALLEGED TEACHINGS, HIS SUPPOSED MIRACLES, HIS RESURRECTION OR ANY OF THE OTHER DOCTRINAL CRAP. I hope this is clear even to you.

    4. So basically, Jesus as a man told a lot of lies?

    5. Go back to school and learn to read.

    6. I have to say I'm with robertallen on this one. That a charismatic man named Jesus once lived and a handful of his followers built up his reputation through a series of stories and anecdotes is not out of reason. Calling it all a bunch of lies is an indication of a bias that says you don't care to listen to reason or any type of logic. We don't know what Jesus said. It is hearsay and told by those who heard it from someone else. That doesn't mean he didn't exist and he didn't say that.

      Too many people take the Bible too seriously as absolute truth. On the other hand, others dismiss it all, not even bothering to understand it in context. It was written and recounted by people who lived in those times and gives insight that archaeology could never do. If the church didn't exist it would be no different than the myths of the Greeks, the Norsemen or the Native Americans. You take the parts that can be verified and separate it from the obvious fabrications of the faithful. "Lies" is a word a person uses who doesn't want to learn or understand. Robertallen can be a little aggressive at times but he knows how to separate fact from fiction.

    7. So if you don't accept his teachings, or that he did miracles, or anything else, why are you so butthurt when other people don't agree that he existed? where is your dog in this fight? why do you even care what I, or anyone else here thinks?

      On the other hand, why do you accept that he existed with so little proof?

    8. Mainstream biblical scholarship has offered its evidence (and it's complete textual, completely scholarly, completely non-religious). So now, the ball is in your court. If you say definitely that "Jesus" did not exist, you go up against the consensus of those who know more about the matter than you and prove them wrong.

    9. P.S.
      And you can start by explaining why Josephus, Suetonious, Tacitus and Pliny, all later sources, all non-biblical, make reference to him, however fleetingly. They certainly did not get their information from the bible.

    10. Josephus - he was born 4 years after jesus died and started writing about Jesus after 66 CE - and the gospels are dated at 60 CE. He could have had access to the greek texts, and taken them as fact.

      Suetonious - born 69CE - "Chrestus," as Suetonius spells it, is the correct Latin form of a true Greek name, so that some would say that it does not refer to Jesus Christ.

      Tacitus - born AD 56 - is the best, but again he was a second hand source that had access to the text already written. He also does not reveal the source of his information. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless"

      Pliny - again born in 61 CE, and mentions christians but not jesus of nazareth by name.

      Did I just do your homework for you? how do you know they didn't get their info from the NT in it's form at the time... they were born the year it was dated FFS! You have way too much speculation for my tastes.

      Love your use of the word 'certainly' as if you know for fact. Care to let me take a ride on that time machine?

    11. Did I not state that all the non-biblical sources are later? While these outside sources are sparse and for some controversial, there is nothing to cause one to jump to the conclusion that the famous "Jesus" never existed. These glosses are based on something and considering the level of education, sophistication and contemporary reputations of the authors involved, it's highly unlikely that all of them were merely repeatinghearsay.

      Like most historians of the time, Tacitus rarely provides his sources probably because in his day, history was looked at differently than in ours. In addition, Tacitus wrote about people and events occurring before he was born. So you can ask the same question, where did he get his information? All from hearsay? Not likely for someone who was considered in his lifetime the pre-eminent historian of Rome, Guignebert notwithstanding. Incidentally Guignebert supported the physical existence of "Jesus," but not all the doctrinal crap. Book 15, Chapter 44 of the Annales mentions Pontius Pilate as well as "Jesus" and almost all biblical scholars with the exception of Mr. Guignebert consider this passage authentic.

      Once again, mainstream biblical scholarship has presented an awfully strong case for the earthly existence of "Jesus." If you think that you possess the competence to go against this mainstream by claiming that "Jesus" never existed, you'd better be able to prove it--and giving as a reason that he does not appear in the Roman annals (which can hardly be complete) is not enough. A lot of other people who were punished as criminals probably do not either.

    12. and the sparce, later sources let you jump to the conclusion that he did? If they came later there is the possibility that they had access to gossip and work that was already in circulation, making any second hand sources suspect.

      you keep citing the 'mainstream biblical scolarship' and 'all biblical scholars' as if that's a magic wand that makes your claims true. until there is a first hand source I'll remain a skeptic.

    13. Their access to work already in circulation does not prima facie make them any more suspect than a later historian writing about Alexander the Great. What other way is there to write history? Once again, it's hard to imagine historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius who were highly regarded in their day basing entire histories on mere gossip.

      And yes, the consensus of mainstream scholarship, based on a substantial and compelling amount of evidence, carries a lot more weight than anything you have so far offered. However, once again, if you desire to go up against mainstream scholarship (i.e., those who know more about the subject than you and who have no agenda other than scholarship) and claim that the historical "Jesus" didn't exist, you furnish the proof of it.

    14. so, sparce, few, and suspect sources suddenly become substantial and compelling evidence? You cite wikipedia! It MUST be true!!!one!1!!
      I already told you why I don't accept your sources.

      I offer nothing other than my skepticism and lack of first hand sources. Argument from generalized authority isn't going to scoot you around that to come to your conclusion.

      You know it's logically impossible to prove a negative, and I said I would remain a skeptic until given first hand proof that he did exist and is not a figment of someone's imagination. They say, Jesus as written in the bible existed (you have to be specific cause lots of guys had that name, Yeshua), and I reject that claim. Take from it what you will.

    15. I take that to mean that you set yourself above those who know a lot more about the subject than you, who've studied the subject a lot more than you have and who've gone into the subject in a lot more depth than you have. Positing that "Jesus" is a figment of someone's imagination is an assertion requiring proof, proof which you cannot even begin to provide.

      By the way, we have no firsthand proof that Euclid existed. Every account of him is centuries after the fact. Yet, no one denies it. We have no firsthand account of the existences of Lucretius, Petronius and Manilius; everything is way after the fact. Yet, no one denies it. You're going to need a lot more than lack of firsthand sources to be able to justify your skepticism.

      P.S. You have misspelled sparse twice so far.

    16. i don't care that I spelled it wrong... OMG that means everything I said MUST be wrong!!!one!!one1!!!one! I BOW to your celebrated Discus intelligence and ability to use spell check!! I'm SO not WORTHY! AHHH! XD

      You keep referring to a wiki article and nebulous 'consensus' but on doing... TEN MINUTES of the google research I can find people that don't agree with you (SHOCKING that they exist, huh).

      My proof is that the gospels were most likely written by one source (IN GREEK!) and then copied and embellished, making it more believable that it was a created myth by a single individual. Everything else was written around 60CE - there were no fact checkers or internet back then so no one could check what really happened when they wrote !!!AFTER THE FACT!!! (minus Philo of Alexandria, cause he was a first hand source that was silent) If they were well read, and could write in greek, they had access to the documents. How else do you think gods were created back then - and why do you think none are created NOW?? (hint: the telephone)

      And again you're comparing people that did science/philosophy with a religious mythological figure. It doesn't matter that Euclid existed, as long as we can use the geometry. It matters that Jesus existed because Christianity is CRAP and people blindly believe all the BS told about him. People have DIED because 'he existed' - which, to me, needs 100% PROOF that their ideas aren't just some 60CE Greek speaking guy's brainfart, who regurgitated what others said and did - rolling it into one myth.

    17. As usual you miss the point. As Jack1952 has indicated, you're claim that "Jesus" was merely a figament of the imagination is based solely on your hatred of Christianity (which I share) which is intellectually untenable, as evidenced by the lack of logic in your closing paragraph. A person's deeds (accomplishments) are one thing; proof of his existence is another--and the two have nothing to do with each other.

      "My PROOF is that the gospels were MOST LIKELY written by one source . . . [emphasis added]. Well, which is it, proof or conjecture? Considering your lack of knowledge of biblical history, I would say the latter.

      Someone who doesn't care about his spelling obviously doesn't care about scholarship (both of which involve detail) which explains such uneducated statements as "Everything else was written around 60 C.E." For your information: the synoptic gospels are dated by mainstream scholars (people who know more about this than you do) as follows:

      Mark - 65-80
      Matthew - 80-100
      Luke - 80-130
      John - 90-120

      In addition, no mainstream scholar (the only people who matter in this respect) claims a single source for the synoptic gospels, but rather several.

      I suggest that before you post further, you do further reading not only as to biblical scholarship, but as to the meaning of the word consensus.

      Your entire mode of "thinking" places you on a par with the religees whom you claim to despise.

    18. Good reply, but I take issue with using consensus as a basis for anything but consensus. The facts are the facts, yes, but whether a bunch of credible people agree with them is neither here nor there. It's an issue dealt with in various ways in the Skeptics Dictionary, if you look up N-Rays you'll see where I'm coming from.

      I only mention it, as it weakens your argument rather than strengthens it to use someone's perceived outsider status to discredit their view, even if he is making a fool of himself and placing himself outside the realms of reason.

    19. I see nothing wrong with using the consensus of mainstream cognoscenti as an argument. To go up against them and make my objections credible, I would have to know the subject as well as they and then elliptically I would become a member of the cognescti, only with a different, but respectable opinion. Jack Horner, the paleontologist, is representative of this. I see nothing wrong in discrediting the view of someone who perceives himself as outside the fold and lacks the knowledge to justify his position. So I don't see how this weakens my argument.

    20. Was a child qualified to declare 'The Emperor has no clothes'. Should that job not be reserved purely for a committee of tailors, who in due course and with much scholarly deliberation may indeed consent that the Emperor may or may not be naked based on the current level of research at this time and with due respect to their esteemed colleagues in the field and so forth.

      You make an excellent case for why Stanislaw Lem and Ayn Rand are still relevant, especially for curious and impertinent children. And I'm encouraged to finally read The Outsider.

      The person you critiqued simply triggered your prejudice, nothing could be clearer than that, and why should you apologise when a convenient rationalisation for your impulsive behaviour is at hand?

      But others should not be dissuaded. It's often the stupid question, the one that puts a stick between the spokes that really matters. That's what angers people the most, because it humbles them. I can't say I see it happening much on this forum, but it does happen, and it often takes someone with the mind of a child to see through adult self-delusion, religious or otherwise. As long as the goal is to discover reality, stupid questions should be heartily encouraged, and most of all in the totally unqualified, we'd have no dissent and possibly no progress without them.

    21. I have no idea what you're talking about.

    22. You prompted me to re-read my post(s) and I'm delighted by my own lucidity. I answered all your questions, provided references and good convincing arguments. I am sad it was wasted, just as every person here who talks reason is wasted.

      I know your impervious to reason and it saddens me, it really does, and your just trolling now.

      Please stop, there are too many sincere people trying to unburden you of your arrogance, please let them rest, do the right thing. It's just turned into a pitiful display.

    23. I've just read through your posts and I'm not impressed by the intellect displayed in any of them. Your idea of good, convincing arguments is merely egocentric.

      In case you didn't notice, this is a public forum and you are completely out of line by demanding that I stop posting. Needless to say, I will not.

    24. That is an argument that does not go in your favour. When looking for confirmation of a claim we look for other sources. You just named other sources.

    25. It is unlikely that Tacitus, one of the pre-eminent historians of his day, would have written about both "Jesus" and Pontius Pilate based solely on hearsay and the bible which wasn't even codified until a century after his death. He must have had other sources which are now lost. The same with the other historians I mentioned.

      As for confirmation from other sources, sometimes we just don't have it. All the information we have about Euclid comes from writings dating from at least 200 years later, but no one doubts his existence, the same with all the information we have about Petronius, Lucretius and Manilius.

      So I don't see how this does not go in my favor.

    26. I'm sorry. For some reason I thought that someone else had posted this comment. Blame it on a long day at work, a big meal and two glasses of wine that I washed the meal down with. I'll just go to sleep now. Once again, sorry and disregard that comment.

    27. Well, I already called him crazy. I'll stick with that ;)

    28. Phoney
      why would somebody that doesn't accept the accounts in the bible have to claim that jesus was "either crazy, or a liar. "? why can't a person say that the bible was written long after the life of this man, there are multiple unknown authors, many of the passages in the bible today are not in the earliest writings, not all the books even claim to be first hand accounts, we know the NT has been translated many times, we have no original copies, the writings contradict each other/history and logic and much of the NT requires interpretation?

    29. Because that would be the truth. Speaking of biblical books not claiming to be firsthand accounts, do you recall the beginning of Luke?

      P.S. Everything requires interpretation, even literalism.

  54. It's a sad day. National Geographic can fall no lower. This isn't a documentary, it's a Sunday School lesson.

  55. Stroppy teen being raised by his step dad and a mum with too many kids and not enough time. He's nothing but trouble so he's dragged of to work on a building site in the hopes he might come good. Really all he wants to do is shoot the breeze with his mates and play with boats (no motorbikes in those days). Then he does a PlanB (the singer) and gets famous for rapping about how hard life is in his manor. Before he knows it he's pushing 30, got no girlfriend and his rapscallion ways have him known all over Galilee. He should have had counselling at this point (absent dad, emotionally neglected by his mum). Instead he got k-lined at a wedding and dissed his mum. Next thing you hear he's ranting on street corners, mad, bad and dangerous to know, the rest is history. Jesus, rebel without a cause
    They should have let me script this doc, a dinosaur and a few explosions and it's a blockbuster film. Better than the book for a change ;)

    1. They should have let you script a lot of things, like the bible itself, speaking of which, do you the old song "The Irish Were Egyptians Long Ago."

    2. Never heard it before, now I have I'm sure it's true. I'm tempted with the bible rewrite, maybe when I retire :)

    3. It begins, "It must have been the Irish who built the pyramids for no one else could carry up the bricks. It must have been a Doyle who tamed the river Nile for no one but an Irishman could tame a crocodile." That's as much of it as I can remember right now.

      As I was just mentioning to Achem, I would love to read your version of the story of Onan.

    4. is this documentary worth me watching?

    5. Not really. The first 10 or 15 minutes are spent listening to a number of people, including the narrator, state over and over again that nothing is known about the life of "Jesus" from ages 12-18, accompanied by re-enactments--or perhaps it's the other way around. Two major points are missed and there is one glaring omission in the treatment of "Jesus'" alleged education. Except for the social descriptions, it's basically a group people saying a lot of nothing.

    6. What are the two points he misses and the one glaring omission? I am curious.

    7. Although written around 200 A.D., the Protogospels cover the "unknown years" albeit as fantastically as the synoptic ones cover the known ones. While this is not a particularly great source, it is our oldest with respect to the "missing years" and it was not mentioned.

      Character development is a modern concept which was unknown in the literature of the time and before, cf. the Old Testament, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Argonautica, etc. In other words, the characters emerged fully formed. So it's no wonder that "Jesus'" formative years are not contained in the synoptic gospels. This was not mentioned and it's vital.

      The documentary failed to mention that Luke 2:41-52 where "Jesus" argues with the elders of the temple is the only place in the bible treating of "Jesus'" education. Considering the area in which Jesus grew up, the truth of this passage is open to question. Jesus probably knew as much Greek and Hebrew as Cleopatra knew Egyptian, certainly not enough Hebrew to be able to understand and discuss the Old Testament with the elders of the temple as the documentary seems to imply. He certainly could have spoken to them in Aramaic, but considering his background, how sophisticated could the discussions have been?

    8. If you are looking for a documentary about the missing years of Harry Potter's life using examples from the Harry Potter series as evidence, then yes this is a terribly worthwhile video.

      A doc of perhaps more revealing nature is one titled "The Lost Gospels" where the years of Jesus' childhood and adolescence pop up. Its the equivalent of George Lucas completing the Star Wars franchise with 3 new movies... people very much preferred the original, so they pretend the new episodes don't exist, and everyone is happy.

    9. Could you rewrite my life? You could make that tall blonde with the like me this time. Not much to ask and I would really like that. Don't crucify me though. I'd hate that.

  56. Dr. Carrier and a great many others would disagree that there is any real evidence that Jesus existed. The church has owned this debate for nearly two millennia, and church influence, directly or indirectly, has largely decided what should be accepted or not as evidence. But we do NOT have a single piece of real evidence, from the time period that Jesus was supposed to have lived, that demonstrates or even lends some probability towards a historical Jesus.
    Nothing. No historical records, no mention of Jesus by the numerous historians who were actively writing about events in Roman occupied Palestine, no archaeological evidence, no eye witness accounts -- nothing. Everything that was ever written about a Messiah Jesus was written well after the time he was supposed to have lived. The earliest christian text has been "attributed" to 70AD, but only because the text mentions the fall of Jerusalem which took place in 70AD. Nowhere in the text is there any evidence, or even a claim, that it was written in 70AD. Imagine a thousand years in the future and some historians find a text that mentions, in passing, the attack on the world trade center in 2001, but otherwise gives no date or indication when it was written. Should those historians then assume that that text was written on 09-11-2001. Of course not! And they would be foolish to assume such a far-fetched thing. Same with the christian text that causally mentions the fall of Jerusalem. It could just as easily have been written centuries later. I grew up in a very religious home, and, for a short time, I studied in a seminary. I understand why some people, even some otherwise very intelligent scholars, really WANT and NEED to believe in the historicity of Jesus. But there"s simply no evidence to support that belief -- NONE. Some of you will say. "But Bart Erhman says..." Erhman CHOOSES to believe. And he does himself, and all serious, honest scholars, a terrible disservice by making unfounded, extremist, patently dogmatic claims about the historicity of Jesus. If Ehrman said, "I BELIEVE there PROBABLY was a real Jesus" that would be within reason. But he claims to be absolutely 100% certain, beyond any doubt -- as if he were actually there in 30AD having tea with Jesus every afternoon. There is NO real historical, archaeological, linguistic, or any other kind of evidence that Jesus was a real person.

    1. There is a fine article on Jesus' existence on Wikipedia which I suggest you read, along with Dr. Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" which you obviously have not. He then goes on to analyze sources pro and con, including Dr. Carrier. Dr. Ehrman does not want or need to believe in the historicity of Jesus. In other words, you have seriously misrepresented Dr. Ehrman--and by the way, it's not just Dr. Ehrman, it's the majority of biblical scholars of which Dr. Ehrman is a fine representative.

      By the way, the reason why we don't have any contemporary non-biblical texts about Jesus is because he was only one of a number of minor nuisances in the Roman Empire which also accounts for his later gloss and dismissal by Suetonious, Pliny and Tacitus.

      I'm certain Napoleon existed and did all that he was credited with and have no doubts about Plato, Copernicus and Newton, yet I never had tea with any them.

      P.S. For your information, the earliest mention of Jesus is on an ossuary dated 63AD.

    2. really? ...We should take your claims as accepted archaeological and historical fact it seems. Because wikipaedia says so.

    3. And just what do you have to the contrary?

    4. 1. I have indeed read "Did Jesus Exist" and a great many other books and papers by Erhman. He is an excellent writer and always an interesting read. But even scholars who think there may have been a Jesus have criticized Ehrman for claiming it is a "fact", which no honest scholar would feel comfortable saying because the evidence simply doesn't warrant such certainty. Most people gravitate towards biblical studies because they want to learn more about their Lord and Savior -- that's the reason Erhman himself first went into the field (though he now seems to consider himself agnostic) -- and they almost always have a predetermined agenda about Jesus. People interested in facts, evidence, and truth gravitate more towards history, archaeology, linguistics, and other sciences, and in those fields you rarely find anyone (among the thousands of scholars around the world) who thinks the evidence itself warrants a belief in the historicity of Jesus.
      2. So, this Jesus performed miracles of a mind-boggling magnitude, born of a virgin, water into wine, raising people from the dead, etc., etc. And he did these miracles over and over again for three years. Then was crucified for claiming to be king (Romans kept such meticulous records that we even know what they ate for breakfast. But no record of a man crucified for performing fantastic miracles and claiming to be the real king???) So, contemporary historians of that time, and everyone else, thought he was too minor to mention in the annals of history. Quite laughable.
      3. Regarding the ossuary you mentioned, I'm very sorry to inform you that a number of antiquities authorities from around the world have demonstrated - DEMONSTRATED - that it is a complete fraud. The box itself "may" be from that time period, but the inscription was determined to be quite new. Yet another christian fraud out of many. Yet, even had the inscription been as old as the box, it would have meant very little. It may surprise you to learn that no one in Palestine was ever named 'Jesus'. Jesus is a GREEK tranliteration of Y?h?šu?‘ (Joshua). However, James, Joseph and Y?h?šu?‘ (Joshua) were the three most common names in Palestine for several centuries. Scholars find artifacts all the time (from a wide range of time periods) with those names on them. It's the same as archaeologists a thousand years from now finding artifacts with George, Bill, or John.
      4. There MAY have been a real man named Jesus (Joshua) in whose name christianity was founded. But there is NO evidence based reason to believe that is the case.

    5. Like all true biblical scholars, Ehrman has no predetermined agenda except for historical scholarship and everything that goes with it. There is nothing religious about him. As a matter of fact, you should remember that he states this quite clearly in the preface to "Did Jesus Exist" and he certainly follows through--find me one dogma-based argument in the entire book.

      While he started as off as an evangelist, as you pointed out, Ehrman is certainly not one now. Learning cured him of that. Ehrman no more believes in miracles, bible-style, than he believes in the supernatural in general. So why you bring this up is beyond me.

      I have not read anywhere that this ossuary was declared a complete fraud and no such verdict emerged from the trial.

      No, it doesn't surprise me that the name "Jesus" is a rendering of "Joshua," just as Christ was not a cognomen. And it also doesn't surprise me that the name "Jesus" in whatever incarnation was fairly common during the period in question. As a matter of fact, there was another "Jesus" shortly after the more famous one who was also crucified in much the same manner and for much the same reason, but again, how many people now refer to Livy as Livius, Pliny as Plinius or Virgil as Virgilius although I admit that no one refers to Suetonius as Suetony.

      The consensus of biblical scholars who, once again, have no hidden agenda, is that there was a man named "Jesus" at the time in question, an apocalpytic preacher who was baptized and crucified--and I go with the consensus as to the existence of the historical "Jesus" AS A MAN and only AS A MAN, especially in light of reliable though serotinous historians such as Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus who wrote only a snippet or two about him (when it comes to "Jesus," I take Josephus with a grain of salt.). In light of what I have read, I find it hard to make "Jesus" out to be like Paul Bunyan, a publicist's fiction.

      Considering the summary proceeding of "Jesus'" crucifiction as described in the synoptic gospels (esimtated at about 12 hours from arrest to punishment) and considering what a negligible nit "Jesus" was in his own lifetime, I can believe that he, along with many others crucified like him, were not included in the Roman annals we have--and by the way, Jesus was not crucified for performing miracles.

      Like Ehrman, I have no agenda other than historicity and scholarship.

    6. Thank you! Very well said!

  57. i can't help but giggle - you can't have missing years if you never existed at all.

    you want to know what he did from 12-30? do what the single gospel writer did - make something up.

    1. I can't help but giggle as well, but for a different reason. It is the consensus of Biblical scholars (and these are the only people who count) that "Jesus" existed, but as a man only--this is one of the few points of almost unanimous agreement. Are you familiar with the protogospels, not that they're any more believable than the canon?

    2. Richard Carrier would definitely not agree with the soundness of this consensus...

    3. So what? You might want to read what Bart Ehrman has to say about Mr. Carrier in "Did Jesus Exist?"

    4. So what? Nothing, just saying. What exactly do we know about this Jesus the man, so we can be sure he was a real person? If what Ehrman says in his book is about Carrier and not Carrier's arguments, I'm not interested in personal insults. Btw. you might want to read Carrier's review of the book and their subsequent exchange of opinions...

    5. It's completely intellectual. Also, it's not just Dr. Ehrman, it's also the rest of mainstream biblical scholarship, those with no hidden agenda.

    6. "consensus'' is this a 'USAmericanism' such as 'license' and 'color'.

    7. What do you suggest as the "British" alternative ;-) ? It is a Latin word originally, there is no other spelling of it as far as I know. See the Oxford Dictionary. But I'm Czech, so what could I know about Americanisms anyway...

    8. You're right. I guess you speak three languages.

    9. And what of 'USAmericanism'? Of what Englishism is that?

    10. Helen, most -- but not all -- so called "Americanisms" are original British English that have been preserved in the U.S. since colonial days. In most cases, it is British English that has changed over the years, and Brits, except for some linguists/historians, are simply unaware they used to say those things. It was a BRITISH linguist from the University of Birmingham that famously said, "If Shakespeare were alive today, he would have a much easier time understanding the Americans than he would the British." It is ironic, and counter-intuitive, but true, that much of contemporary American English is more "original" than contemporary British English. Peace.

    11. And Shakespeare would have probably gotten along linguistically quite well with denizens of the Ozarks--and no, if you read the history, it is not counterintuitive.

      By "original," do you mean imaginative, creative? If so, you're probably right. Mencken makes considerable mention of this in his history of the American language. Have you read it?

    12. if he existed where's the proof? there were historians writing while he was alive, so why not about him. I've heard that there was possibly only one gospel writer and the others were copies with embellishments, so it's plausible that he was 100% myth.

      Are you talking about the apocryphal gospels? they're even crazier than the canon ones...

      I don't think it's a 'consensus' as you claim - until there is proof positive that he did exist from different sources, it is just speculation and there will be varying opinions.

    13. Now once again, the reason we don't have contemporary writings on him is because he was one of many minnows in a big pond.

      His temporal existence is a consensus of biblical scholars. What you think does not count--read up on it. There's a fine article on Wikipedia--not that you'll go to it. And while you're reading up on this, try to do a little rethinking. We have only one source for Socrates, namely Aristotle. We have only one source for Lucretius consisting of two manuscripts obviously copied from the same original manuscript. We have only one source for Apollonius of Tyana. We have only one source for Marcion and that's not even a direct one. In other words we don't have different sources; yet no one denies that these people lived, except perhaps you.

      And no, you have the history of the synoptic gospels wrong. What you've heard does not count. Why not read up on this before making such statements.

    14. Wikipedia? You're not serious are you?

    15. What's the matter with Wikipedia. It's at least a good beginning.

    16. As long as you admit that it's a beginning and not the end al and be all of the argument. Especially where these matters are concerned. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      And I have absolutely no religious bias axe to grind.

    17. I view Wikipedia as a starting point and a great place to go if you want basic information in a jiff, for example virtual scholastic consensus on the historical "Jesus." While nothing can replace in-depth study, an in-depth study of this area of biblical scholarship is not likely to turn up anything to contradict this statement. Also, as life is too short for an in-depth study of everything, Wikipedia does serve a purpose.

    18. Ok agreed.

    19. You're not going to refer him to Youtube? I thought we resolved this.

    20. that's funny, just cause i want solid proof that someone existed means that i expect what i believe to be real - that's actually you... If someone digs up something that proves he existed then that's what I'll take as the truth (still doesn't prove miracles, or that he was god, etc). Until then I'll remain a skeptic.

      all these other people that you mention aren't the basis for world religions, or have miracles claimed about them, so they're not a good comparison. whether or not they exist isn't as important as their writings and scientific discoveries or would shake world faith. jesus, however has god claims made about him, so needs more proof - it's not like he discovered a branch of mathematics or anything useful. As we've seen from past myths and stories, it was really easy to make up a god and have it endure for thousands of years (see Egypt or Babylon)

      I've done plenty of reading, thank you very much, but i've had enough of your snobbery. I have yet to read or see anything that makes me think jesus existed, in the end it's all speculation. Until there is another source other than the NT author mentioning him and his miracles, I will not 'believe' he existed.

    21. When you wrie, "I don't think it's a 'consensus' as you claim," it's obvious that you're lying about the amount of reading you've done on the matter.

      My statement was that we have limited sources (sometimes just one) on a number of people whose existence no one questions. So your attempt to sidetrack the issue to one of amount of influence exerted is disingenuous and dishonest.

      Quite frankly, in light of the consensus among biblical scholars (and again I refer you to the article in Wikipedia which I just know you will not even look at), your beliefs are as worthless as your attempts at intellection.

    22. Read the original King James Version Bible. The twelve apostles are the proof he existed and the authors of the books in the Bible. Did you think yourself to be in existence all by yourself?

    23. So it must be true because the Bible, in particular the King James version, tells me so.

  58. How about a more accurate video of the missing years of Jesus from his impossible conception and birth until his mythological death and resurrection?

    1. How can they make a more accurate video? there is nothing that is accurate of the story of the deity Jesus in the long line of the preceding stories of all the other deities that follow in succession.

  59. working fine for me!

  60. The video stops playing at 1:02 no matter how many times I reload it.