Did Jesus Exist?

On 15 Feb 2024, Aeon published an article written by Gavin Evans titled "There was no Jesus: Why the son of God story is built on mythology, not history." In this 55-minute video Mike Licona examines the article point-by-point, revealing abundant errors in Evans' assertions.
Evans' article can be read at aeon.co/essays...
Related Videos
Man or Myth? Did Jesus Exist? • Man or Myth? Did Jesus...
Did Jesus claim to be God? • Did Jesus claim to be ...
____________________
Mike Licona is Professor of New Testament Studies at Houston Christian University. HCU offers an accredited Master of Arts degree in apologetics that may be completed entirely online or on the HCU campus in Houston.
📜For more information, visit bit.ly/2Wlej6Z
🎓You can also earn a Master of Divinity degree that can be completed entirely online at bit.ly/3po5uEX
👨🏻‍🎓 HCU offers a rigorous Doctorate of Ministry degree: hc.edu/houston...
🌐WEBSITE: www.risenjesus...
💻FACEBOOK: / drmikelicona
📱TWITTER: / drmikelicona
📚 Buy “Jesus, Contradicted”: bit.ly/48H0FNM
📚 Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
📚Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
📚Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
📚Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
🅿️ If you like Mike's work, become a patron by visiting his new Patreon page at / risenjesus or make a tax-deductible contribution(s) as allowed by law by going to Mike's secured website:
✋www.risenjesus...

[@kaykwanu]

Thanks Mike. Having been following you and other NT scholars, when I saw the article I immediately thought it bonkers. I must confess that in the past what he said might have bordered me, but I am so happy that what he says is not true. I used to just believe just for the mere sake of believing emotionally that Jesus existed (I never even really conscientiously gave much thought to whether he rose from the dead), but now I know and my faith is not as fickle as it used to be.

[@The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

90+% of scholars denied Christ was God, when He confronted them, does that prove He was not the Messiah? #allthesemensaid

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

When did that happen?

[@The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

​@@StudentDad-mc3pu I was referencing the scribes, Pharisees & lawyers. Most specifically the Pharisees as they were the ones who did the scholarly work to maintain the scriptures yet, when God Himself, the One those scriptures were ostensibly about, came, they sought to kill Him, even though He made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that He is the living God.

[@paradisecityX0]

Is the earth round? Was the moon landing real? Is water wet? Is the sky blue? Can only women get pregnant?

[@johnschutt9187]

Mike. You do such wonderful work. Thank you for all the years of training that you put in to be able to give us this information. You truly are a gift to the church body.

[@jordanpeters3746]

I've made a study of the Greek text of Mark ... and have found clear evidence that the text we have today is the product of deliberate alteration of an original text by someone opposed to the story line of the original text. What we have today is around twice the size of the original text. So what is this "evidence"? The original author "structured" his text ... the alterations of, and additions to the text, disrupt this structure. In the Greek text Mark 1, verses 3-5 has 51 words. Verses 6-8 has 51 words . Verses 9-11 has 52 words ... if "Nazareth" is removed so that it agrees with Matthew ("Jesus came from Galilee") then again we have 51 words. Numerous other 51 word "passages" can be seen throughout the text. The original text was the script of a play. Saint Peter was not a character in this play ...he was added later. Consider Peter's Greek name: SIMWN PETROS ,,, it anagrams to MORTWS PENIS (Latin: Mortuus penis, "Dead penis") .. and he founded a religion ruled over by celibate priests? An examination of the text covering the crucifixion exposes the fact that in the original text it was Simon of Cyrene on the cross, not Jesus (as some early Gnostic texts claim). The play was an exercise in propaganda ... hostile to contemporary Jewish beliefs and practices. This play was written around 130 ad ... with the story line set a hundred tears earlier. Simon of Cyrene would have been understood by the audience as representing Simon Bar Kokhba, the leader of the 131 ad Jewish revolt against the Romans ...who was declared by the Jewish priesthood to be the Jewish Messiah (a war lord sent by God). Jesus is depicted as a Hellenistic Messiah (many Jews of the time were Hellenistic in their outlook). The fact that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Christians in the first century is because Christianity was not "concocted" until after this play was written. The earliest authentic reference to Christians has been dated to 138 ad.

[@swhite7929]

Amazing point with the anagram! My first name means 'princess' and my last name comes from 'brothel.' I've never had a boyfriend. A careful examination of my name and life two millenia from now will show I'm actually a satirical take on the madonna/wh*re complex! An anagram of PLATO ARISTOCLES is 'ACROPOLIS LATEST'. How convenient that this Athenian philosopher who commented on his culture and his contemporaries has a name that can be made topical to his supposed "life" in a completely different language! (By the way, clerical celibacy wasn't a thing until the middle ages)

[@SSNBN777]

I read His words, then asked Him if He was real. Yes, He's real. Matthew 7:8 GNT For everyone who asks will receive, and anyone who seeks will find, and the door will be opened to those who knock.

[@shirleywhitlock1526]

Jesus is real,he does exist,if anyone dont have him or if you dont believe in him ,then you just wont feel him he only gets known to the ones that believe in him....❤❤❤❤ if you believe is by faith then you will know him and fell him and hes Holly Spirit..i feel him eery day....❤❤❤

[@Prowl_32]

I love Jesus and Jesus love you

[@markbarrett4482]

The fact that we are still talking about Jesus in modernity is proof positive that he did exist.

[@georgemonnatjr.172]

I bet today there are far fewer Biblical scholars who do not believe there was an historical Jesus tjan there are those who believe the Earth is flat.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

You would lose that bet. How many Biblical historians, such as I, have publically stated they believe the Earth to be flat?

[@darrenplies9034]

Tinfoil hat level nonsense

[@les2997]

We have the burial cloths associated with Jesus, so, yes, Jesus existed.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

No, no we don't

[@les2997]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Check the Shroud of Turin. The complexity of the image and the fact that it contains 3D information strongly suggests that it was created by a process that was more sophisticated than medieval technology would have allowed.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@les2997 No, I'm afraid not. There have been lots of attempts to cast doubt on the Radio Carbon Dating of the shroud but no actual evidence has been presented that makes this anything other than a 13th Century Fake.

[@BoredBrain]

It doesn't matter THAT scholars believe Mark is the author of Mark. What matters is WHY they believe Mark is that author of Mark. And the "why" is sorely lacking.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

The majority of Scholars absolutely reject the idea that anyone called 'Mark' wrote that Gospel.

[@JM-jj3eg]

Funny - when the consensus goes against you, that's when you want to actually look at the evidence and arguments.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@JM-jj3eg The consensus is certainly that Mark was not written by anyone called Mark.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@JM-jj3eg Which guy? What 'head count'. There may be a majority of PEOPLE that have never questioned who wrote Mark (because most Christians have never heard of the idea that the names were added in the following century) but amongst SCHOLARS the overwhelming consensus is that Mark is anonymous, like the other Gospels, and shows clear signs of being adapted from multiple sources.

[@Dawahdude0]

Thre are over 1.8 Billion Muslims who belive Jesus pbuh existed althought they have difference in belief with Christians but there is no doubt of existence of Jesus pbuh

[@Mike00513]

Jesus was not a Muslim.

[@roshenrs5218]

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." 1 john 2: 22-23

[@Dawahdude0]

Muslim means submit to God Jesus P did submit to GOD so he was Muslim

[@Dawahdude0]

TRINITY consists of Father Son and Holy spirit was invented not taught by Jesus @@roshenrs5218

[@stephengray1344]

@@Dawahdude0 By that definition, then devout Christians are Muslims - as we submit to God. Whilst people who claim to be Muslims are universally not Muslims, since they explicitly refuse to submit to God's ultimate revelation of himself when he came to earth in the person of Jesus.

[@theuncarvedblock6565]

The son of god is still built on mythology whether Jesus existed as a person or not. The Jesus of historians is not the Jesus of the Bible.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

U obviously have no evidence to support your ignorant claims!

[@edeveland2056]

Bring evidence not something you've heard. No Egyptian God was born of a virgin. Or came back to life. Unless you think a mother putting her sons body back together is relevant. lol.

[@edeveland2056]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3e1YWuHqduUpq8si=cq4_t096Zxby44k6

[@georgemonnatjr.172]

The vast majority of Biblical scholars agree that Jesus was innocent yet was crucified, his grave was then found empty (or the Jews and Romans would have paraded his corpse), and hundreds of eye witnesses claimed to see him alive again - such that they all suffered greatly with many murdered but none recorded as having recanted. Sounds like the Biblical Jesus to me.

[@theuncarvedblock6565]

@@georgemonnatjr.172 "Biblical scholars" are not historians. And most are Christians.

Oh yeah and you and Evans Just ignored the peer review book of Richard Carrier destroying Jesus as historical!...

[@Lumine777produccines]

Carrier is just a historical lowcow man.

[@cantatanoir6850]

Ignored in what sense? This video is a general overview, the analysis of Carrier's work would take a whole separate video.

[@stephengray1344]

To be entirely accurate, Carrier claims that his book was peer reviewed, but hasn't provided any details, and his publisher declined to comment when asked to verify the claim. Not that it's relevant to this video - which is Mike's response to a particular article. If the article didn't mention or cite Carrier's book, then the book is irrelevant.

[@bany512]

Richard Carrier, lol 😂😂😂

[@krampus3901]

I'll suggest you ask his publisher (which is not a large corporation and a relatively new publishing house; it is not Oxford!) for the names of the so called peer reviewed scholars. You'll notice that they'll just decline to offer any evidence. Carrier has said this but no evidence so far. Who are the scholars that peer reviewed his book and gave their stamp of approval? I am not talking about reviews found on the public domain. The publisher will say that all books get read by a panel, but they Will not offer who read them (in other words, a bunch of Graduate students of the Bible could have read carrier book and gave their "stamp of approval"). The fact that the publisher will never revealed the peer reviewed process or name the so called scholars who reviewed carrier work and say it is "academically sound fit for publishing" should give you a moment of pause, if you weren't so bias. This doesn't discount carrier book, but you are overstaying *HIS* claim of peer reviewed as if you know ACTUAL WELL KNOWED scholars read his book prior to publishing and gave their stamp of approval. You don't. And you'll never will Books are NEVER peer reviewed in the same way an academic journal paper is. It is often done in house; a publishing group will have 1 or 2 readers (could be professors) read a book and say the book is at least academically done to publish with the publisher (does not mean he or she aggrees with the author's work or that the author made correct conclusions; it just mean that the work was done by academic standards; but even students in college or graduate level can write awful papers that *sound* good). The peer reviewed process occurs OUTSIDE the book publishing; when scholars read and then publish their REVIEWS in a sound academic journal for OTHERS in the public to READ. You see the difference? We can't read the so called peer reviewed process for Carriers book. At most it was two readers in the publishing house. You're making it sound that scholars from all over the world peer reviewed Carrier book before being published 😂😂😂😂😂