What Do We Really Know About Jesus? History Hit Reaction

Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize!
/ @metatronyt
Also if you like what I do and wish to support my work to help me make sure that I can continue to tell it how it is please consider checking out my patreon! Unboxings are Patreon exclusives!
/ themetatron
Link to the original video I'm reacting to
• What Do We Really Know...
Jesus Christ is a central figure in Christianity, believed by Christians to be the Son of God and the long-awaited Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. Born in Bethlehem around 4 BC, He lived and preached primarily in the region of Galilee in ancient Palestine during the early 1st century AD.
According to Christian tradition, Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary through divine intervention. He began his public ministry around the age of 30, gathering a group of disciples and traveling throughout the region to teach, heal the sick, and perform miracles. His teachings emphasized love, forgiveness, compassion, and the coming of God's kingdom.
Jesus' message and growing following drew the attention of religious and political authorities. He often challenged established religious practices and interpretations of scripture, which put him at odds with some Jewish leaders of the time. His teachings and actions were seen as threatening by some, while others embraced his message of spiritual renewal and social justice.
The culmination of Jesus' life and ministry came during the Passover festival in Jerusalem. According to Christian accounts, he was betrayed by one of his disciples, arrested, and brought before both religious and Roman authorities. He was sentenced to death by crucifixion, a common form of execution in the Roman Empire.
Christians believe that three days after his death, Jesus rose from the dead, an event known as the Resurrection. This event is central to Christian faith and theology, seen as proof of Jesus' divine nature and God's power over death. Following his resurrection, Jesus is said to have appeared to his disciples and others before ascending to heaven.
The life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus form the foundation of Christian belief and practice. His followers spread his message throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, leading to the establishment of Christianity as a major world religion. Today, billions of people worldwide consider Jesus to be their saviour and seek to follow his teachings in their daily lives.
Jesus' influence extends beyond Christianity. He is recognized as an important prophet in Islam, and his ethical teachings have had a profound impact on Western civilization and global culture. Scholars continue to study his life and teachings, debating their historical context and interpreting their meaning for contemporary society.
The Bible is a sacred text central to Christianity and significant in Judaism. It's a compilation of religious writings divided into two main sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament predates Jesus and includes creation stories, historical accounts, laws, poetry, and prophetic writings. The New Testament focuses on Jesus Christ's life and teachings, the early Christian church, and apocalyptic visions.
This holy book encompasses various literary genres, from historical narratives and laws to poetry, prophecy, letters, and apocalyptic literature. It was composed by multiple authors over more than a millennium, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Today, the Bible exists in numerous translations and interpretations across different Christian denominations.
For believers, the Bible serves as the primary source of Christian doctrine and moral guidance. Its influence extends far beyond religious circles, profoundly shaping literature, art, law, and ethics in many societies worldwide. The text's historical and cultural significance is immense, making it a subject of study not only for religious purposes but also for its literary, historical, and sociological value.
Despite its ancient origins, the Bible continues to be widely read, studied, and debated in contemporary times. Its interpretations and applications vary among different Christian traditions and scholarly approaches, reflecting its complex nature and enduring impact on human culture and spirituality.
#historyhit #jesuschrist #historyofchristianity

[@metatronyt]

Check out my full playlist of Biblically related content! kzbin.info/aero/PLUvZcfKNhSYmewRVvxMm-CsRHRpg1t0r2&si=zuGLHnHgZCjsn_vn Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize! kzbin.info/door/IjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOwjoin Also if you like what I do and wish to support my work to help me make sure that I can continue to tell it how it is please consider checking out my patreon! Unboxings are Patreon exclusives! www.patreon.com/themetatron

[@robertmahaney9147]

do you know of mary beard ?

[@kevlee2753]

Metatron, friend!!.. what do you know of the "2 witnesses" from "Revelations"?? And.. Is there anything you can tell us about them????

[@Random_Chiroptera]

Speaking of history of religion. Is there any truth that scholars improving translations of Hebrew found that the passage in Exodus actually reads as "Thou shall not suffer a prostitute to live." Rather than "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" as was claimed by the Catholic Church, justifying their Inquisition against Pagans?

[@CLDJ227]

Hey Metatron perhaps someone else you could check out or collaborate with is Mike Jones from Inspiring Philosophy. He mostly talks about philosophy, christian apologetics, meets with scholars, and even discusses the works of Tolkien. He seems to do his research and is well studied similar to what you do so I would highly recommend him if you see this comment 😎.

[@Pogonip]

The video was fantastic I would like to see another episode of this

[@lawlietriver8869]

Oh good, Metatron finally found a topic with no chance of controversy! :D Hahaha.. Love this guy.

[@RalphEllis]

Lots of controversy. Especially if Jesus was King Isa or Izas. King Izas Manu of Edessa became the King of the Jews. He wore Crown of Thorns and Purple Robe. He fought Rome in the Jewish Revolt, but lost and was crucified. Josephus says he was taken down early, and survived. Familiar story? This is all from known history. P.S. He was not an artisan, he was a tekton and prince. A tekton is a mason, or perhaps freemason. We know these people were important. The Edessan army came to Judaea to avenge the death of John the Baptist (see Moses of Chorene). Governors and monarchs came to see Saul in prison. They don’t do that for tentmakers. Saul was sent to see Nero. They don’t do that for tentmakers. Saul took the famine relief money from Edessa to Judaea, for the king and queen of Edessa. Saul was an ambassador of Edessa. See Acts of the Apostles. Ralph

[@Leezl41]

I feel sorry for a person who studies and earns degrees to become an 'expert' at at subject, in this case, Jesus, and then misses the ENTIRE point of Christianity, Jesus' teachings and His entire raison d'etre. The saying about intellectuals lacking any common sense is true.

[@angamaitesangahyando685]

​@@Leezl41The woke phase is the internally consistent conclusion of Christianity. - Adûnâi

[@es0teric76]

​@angamaitesangahyando685 you comment that like Adûnâi is worth listening to, lmao.

[@baaldiablo8459]

Hehe good one ;)

[@gewoonfrank478]

The biggest surprise of this video was that Rafaelo Iesous is almost 43 years old.

[@timrake5497]

I know!

[@93truewill]

i thought he was a 30 year old incel judging from the neckbeard

[@danielaramburo7648]

@@gewoonfrank478 he barely looks 25.

[@nicholasneyhart396]

The man aged very well. I thought he was close to my age, he is old enough to be my dad.

[@Tulkash01]

He passed the 33 years mark

[@str.77]

"Jesus was Jewish and throughout his life remained a Jew" - a how does that make him non-Christian? "he led a Jewish reform movement" - which we now call Christianity. And again she comes with "much much later" when the word first appeared in Antioch around 40 AD, so pretty soon after Jesus's crucifixion.

[@KOCChristian]

Yeah Christ means messiah, it a title and (Christ)- ian is the suffix add on of the people who belong to a place or thing. So naturally meant “people of the messiah” or “Belonging of Messiah”. She clearly didn’t understand context of the name meaning so she clearly not up for this topic

[@Mr-wv1tu]

Megatron, I really like the fact that you are aware of your bias in some questions, and also that you tell us about that bias. It is something most of us need to be reminded of, every now and then.

[@goldenapple1754]

His name is Metatron and not Megatron the leader of the Decepticons 😂

[@жопа_полный]

Megamind

[@Lasermensch]

​@@goldenapple1754that's what he wants you to think.

[@pdraggy]

@@goldenapple1754 lol I was about to say just that lmao xD

[@HardHardMaster]

Decepticons, assemble!

[@michaeldoolan7595]

The problems with some archaeologists and historians I've dealt with are they try to fill in the blanks. Some historians just can't state, " I dont know."

[@Makkufurai]

Agreed, being able to admit you don't know something is quite integral to how we figure out anything to say the least, humanities and natural sciences alike. Also of course being able to admit that you can make mistakes. Sadly many feel that it's a weakness to admit mistakes (in fact it's one of the greatest strengths you can have), and many are dissatisfied with not receiving clear instructions of "this is exactly how it is and was." It's understandable to me (as someone who just loves history, I don't study it) that it can be fun to imagine what those blanks could be filled in by though, of course, but extremely important to make it crystal clear as something YOU made up, nothing more. Especially if you have a degree, and super especially if you're in contact with the media!

[@CapAnson12345]

Yeah but there's nothing wrong with a good guess sometimes. For instance, did Joan of Arc personally engage in combat and know how to fight? We don't specifically know.. but considering she was a small peasant girl not even 20 loaded down in armor it's doubtful she was much of a swordswoman.

[@matt0xx76]

I love all your biblical videos my brother

[@bjornskivids]

I'm totally interested in a revisitation of that last video. These discussions have been fascinating

[@ModernMedusa]

Just in time! I just saw someone posting "There is zero evidence that Jesus existed" and I was like "Metatron disagrees." 😂

[@AwesomeEnterpriseInc]

I think most biblical scholars and historians believe that there was a historical man at the root of the myth. What's far more important is whether there is any substantial evidence that the man was divine?

[@bigguy7353]

​@@AwesomeEnterpriseIncStart with your claim. You'd have to prove there's any myth regarding the *historical* figure. I contend there isn't. His divinity is not the point of this video, which incidentally I'm agnostic so you can surmise my view on that.

[@AwesomeEnterpriseInc]

​@@bigguy7353 Actually I don't. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. The claim is that he resurrected. Where is the evidence? The claim is that he is divine. Where is the evidence? The bolder the claim, the more the need for evidence arises. And that which can be stated without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

[@DamePiglet]

​@@AwesomeEnterpriseIncyawn.

[@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231]

There's at least some evidence for pretty much anything that anyone believes, otherwise nobody would believe it. The more important question is how much solid evidence there is.

[@conniepayne4425]

When people of obvious Northern European ancestry describe someone as “dark,” I assume they mean olive skinned.

[@ag6475]

they describe as dark any healthy color of skin, you need vitamin D deficiency to be white as them XD

[@mziwethumbotho3354]

😂😂😂the hate you have for Africans is unbelievable

[@TurtleIslandAdos-zd9ti]

@@mziwethumbotho3354 ?

[@jirihavelka106]

@@mziwethumbotho3354 Not so much hate, more like. Very dark skin are outdoorsy Spainiards, Italians etc. People from africa have african ancestry. We wouldnt dare to call african-american "very dark". This colour debate is considered okey only in shades of white people. :D

[@khanbika]

@@mziwethumbotho3354 what does it have to do with Africans?

[@kensmith8152]

We know that the gospels and Acts were written before the temple was destroyed in seventy AD because the destruction of it was not mentioned

[@KOCChristian]

It was prophesies to be destroyed,

[@richardcoughlin8931]

When you’re from Edinburgh, anything but pasty white skin is very dark

[@slp8093]

I imagine muhammad must be darker than a dark hole then

[@atticstattic]

It's said that in such regions, the appearance of the sun was an indication of God's displeasure.

[@AndyJarman]

Huwhite!

[@deerinheadlights100]

I think of it as alabaster. Pasty sounds half apology half denigration.

[@ag6475]

@@deerinheadlights100 because you are white as milk, alabaster sound better than mozzarella, but is what you are

[@dethswurl117]

The daily videos are such a treat, thanks Metatron

[@trenae77]

I appreciated in The Chosen that they show the men in knee length tunics and shorter hair. It feels more practical to a working common man.

[@SockieTheSockPuppet]

I mean they did get Rabbi Jason to help with the cultural aspects.

[@trenae77]

@@SockieTheSockPuppet and sourced many of the actors from the region or with connections to the region in some way. It’s not perfect - what ever is? - but it does at least give a more accurate representation than most!

[@SockieTheSockPuppet]

@@trenae77 Very much as authentic as possible. Great show.

[@catocall7323]

In early Christian art Jesus had no beard because that was normal for people in the Roman empire, later on they added a beard to make him look more like Jupiter.

[@str.77]

@@catocall7323 Some early depictions show Jesus without a beard because that was normal for wherever place the depiction originated. So far you're right. But "added a beard to make him look more like Jupiter" is pure nonsense. Not only does Jesus's beard look very different from the typical bushy beard of Juppiter. The more likely reason is they added a beard because Jesus had a beard. How do we know that? Well, Jesus was Jewish and adult Jews do have beards.

[@happyslapsgiving5421]

*FINALLY* someone mentions the inconsistency of the "two thieves" translation! 👏👏👏👏👏

[@iTheGeo]

Yes, we totally want you to make a renewed version of the video! 💯

[@טימותילורנס]

"Qualifications...they mean nothing to me these days." - I love it!

[@vmasing1965]

There's a pretty good chance today that high academic qualifications actually mean the person is uneducated griefer who knows alot but unfortunately all of it is untrue... _(paraphrasing Reagan)_

[@Sitbear]

“I’m an anti-intellectual!” - I hate it

[@Rws4Life]

@@Sitbear You should hate how "qualified" people tend to be extremely unqualified for their qualifications, yes.

[@autisticberserker1807]

Typical right wing fascist propaganda to discredit academia. The proud to be uneducated Trump cultists eat this propaganda up.

[@Sitbear]

@@Rws4Life You should hate how unqualified people think they can comment on the qualifications of qualified people. The anti-intellectuals called Covid a hoax, and a million Americans died. They called climate change a hoax, and now we’ve had two “once-in-a-lifetime” hurricanes in a row. Don’t you have a bit of shame when every time you disbelieve the experts, you’re wrong?

[@ismlamaroof6438]

One point to add about "forgetting" things now as compared to back then. The cultures back then were a lot more oral oriented and that stimulated a much stronger function/power of people's ability to remember/memorize things. As a personal example, all the way up until I was about 20-22 there wasn't cellphones. We had to memorized everyone's numbers. Today I only know my cellphone number and my wife's. I don't know any of my kid's or friend's cellphone numbers. The phone remembers it for me. I still remember some of my friends' and parents' house phone numbers that haven't existed for decades, however.

[@bellingdog]

Yeah, this gets overlooked all the time. And we see oral as problematic, whereas, ironically, the people of Late Antiquity see written words as more problematic, as it was possible to spread misinformation (very en vogue) faster this way than by word.

[@ansibarius4633]

Yes, but unlike memorized telephone numbers, for some reason 'true stories' tend to be embellished over time, especially in retelling. ;) I think I understand where you are coming from, though. Oral cultures tend to be good at memorization of long units of information, but this is often done by versifying the contents, as in ancient heroic poetry.

[@raics101]

I don't think it's the ability itself, we remember the things we have to remember because we need them in everyday life, so I knew the phone numbers of my friends because I had to type (or even spin) them out so often. I don't remember many phone numbers nowadays, but I can always remember where everything is in my workplace databases and files because I have to know.

[@ismlamaroof6438]

@@raics101 the brain functions better at things you use it for, making them more efficient and this builds up overtime or negatively, depending. For example, they've shown that long term habitual use of GPS can result in thinning of the hippocampus which effects spatial memory. Even things like words that exist in your language can effect your ability to perceive the world. People who's native language doesn't have very many words for color aren't able to distinguish different tints and shades of color compared to those who's language has more names.

[@raics101]

@@ismlamaroof6438 Heh, right, I also refuse to differentiate colors like 'off white' or 'peach' because people that ask you to use those are tiresome :) Anyway, exercises for the thicker brain it is then.

[@aryasthule1219]

I always laugh at how academics will sometimes go out of their way to question the historical narrative of Jesus because it was a few decades until we had a written account, but they will fully accept the general narrative of the life of Buddha when we have no written account of his life until 400 years after he is supposed to have lived.

[@bellingdog]

Yeah, but his followers aren't white.

[@Iluvantir]

Eyewitness accounts, some written within months to a few years after the events, most scattered over 20 years after the events, with a few written by the last of the Witnesses when he was an old man: "Suspect! Can't trust them!" Stories written down 500+ years after the death of Julius Caesar, three or four different "sources", with actual contradictions in times and places ol' Julius was meant to be at: "Yeah, gold. We can trust it." They need to make it make sense, lol

[@stalhandske9649]

Same with Mohammed. Compared to non-Bible evidence and mentions of Jesus. we have very little if any non-Quran evidence of Mohammed, which, if same standards were applied as those in critical students of Jesus' historicity, would warrant consensus of refute. Then again, the situation speaks for advanced state and relatively long history of exegetic study of Christian texts: one obviously goes for something they're familiar with first. I'm not aware how ok / widespread such critical study of Quran is in Islamic world even today.

[@TimPowerGamer]

And, the weird thing is, even Richard Carrier asserts that the Corinthian Creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is a saying that existed, at least in part, within a decade of the time of Jesus' death. The Corinthian Creed mentions Christs purpose including dying for the sins of others and being resurrected. The narrative was always the same, so there exists no (valid) reasons to assume the narrative changed.

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

Smart people don´t believe in any of those.

[@G-Rex95]

Metatron! Not sure if you’ll see this or not, but I’m a new subscriber, and I love your channel. So much straightforward knowledge. Thanks for the great content!

[@Ruben-eo3xs]

Orthodox Christian here, good video man, keep the content up!

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

May Lucifer free your mind from the lies.

[@swedenisthemotherland3952]

@@PROVOCATEURSKMay satans fatty fingerprints be removed from the walls of your mind.

[@Ruben-eo3xs]

@@PROVOCATEURSK lmao

[@Ruben-eo3xs]

@@PROVOCATEURSK get a load of this guy

[@KOCChristian]

@@PROVOCATEURSK finally stop hiding in the shadows

[@jquilespr]

Lord of Lords & King of Kings

[@nillieable]

Who!!!!

[@NeoCosmicCrusher]

​@@nillieable HHH

[@dhimankalita1690]

Cringe

[@DivineAlchemyOfSouls]

The Lord GOD is Lord of Lords and King of Kings; jesus is simply a man who through his humbleness was given the word of the Lord God so that it could be given to the people; the ones who then turned around and deified and idolized him, in turn doing the exact OPPOSITE of what he wanted, which was for us all talk to and praise the Lord God Almighty directly. Stop spouting blasphemy.

[@giovannischulze1253]

@@dhimankalita1690 unless he's quoting Ben Hur

[@emilpapailiou982]

I will have to disagree with you @Metatron regarding Jesus and most likely knowing as a third language Latin instead of Greek. Greek had a greater prominence in the east since the days of Alexander all the way to the Arab conquest. You can see this difference from the early father's and their writings. How the Eastern ones would write in Greek while the Western ones Latin.

[@michaelwarenycia7588]

Agreed. Everywhere I know of, if there's a common extra language from a place the locals don't actually belong to ethnically, it's usually related to trade and commerce, and Greek certainly filled that role, as English does in many places today.

[@anthonyoer4778]

The army, the administration would have spoken and written latin. Religion and merchants would have used Latin and Greek along with Aramaic.

[@aryasthule1219]

@@emilpapailiou982 I concur. Greek was very common. Even the most prominent version of the Hebrew Bible at the time was the Greek Septuagint, and it continued to be the primary source of Scripture for the early church. So much so that centuries later Jewish scribes sought to distance themselves from Christianity and translated the Septuagint back into Hebrew, giving us the Masoretic text.

[@stephengray1344]

@@aryasthule1219 What makes you think that the Masoretic text was a translation of the Septuagint? Are you saying that the Jewish community lost all their copies of the text in the original language? And if you are right, then why does the Masoretic text of Isaiah (one of the longest books in the Tanakh/Old Testament) differ by only 17 letters (all variant spellings) from the manuscript found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

[@aryasthule1219]

@@stephengray1344 I am not at all saying that the Masoretic text was inaccurate, but it is historically undeniable that the majority of the texts used by the scholars who produced the Masoretic text were from the Septuagint version. It was simply the most common and easily available, and these scholars, who were thoroughly Hellenized by that point, would have been just as versed in Greek as in Hebrew. Western scholarship has tended to exaggerate the importance of Hebrew compared to Greek in the first few centuries CE, until very recently when more are beginning to realize that, for the purposes of studying the early Christian communities, Greek is much more important than Hebrew.

[@Godrules]

21:25 - However, a couple Ante-Nicene writers indicate that Jesus was familiar with and may have used the Greek Septuagint (Justin Martyr), which would indicate he had some knowledge of Greek. Also, the writers of the Gospels more often quote the Greek Septuagint over the Hebrew, as is evident when looking at Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. For example, in Mark 7:6, Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the LXX. Of course, this was the writer of Mark quoting the Septuagint, but you get my point.

[@anthonypalo8191]

Agree, Jesus used Seltuagint. Jews only formalized their books after Christianity has established theirs., basically Christian Buble okder than their fomalized canon and talmud

[@bellingdog]

Yeah, Jesus used the Septuagint. The fact that the early Church Fathers and Apostles quoted from the Septuagint (c.f. every time the Hebrew Scriptures are mentioned in the New Testament). And, Christ, for us Christians, knew every language, since He is God.

[@scottybreuer]

​@@bellingdog I don't think it's accurate to say Jesus (during his Earthly ministry) actively knew everything he knows as the second person of the Trinity. The Bible indicates he voluntarily limited his knowledge prior to the Resurrection.

[@dreadtrain2846]

@@bellingdog You don't get to throw God in without proving his existence via the scientific method, otherwise, pipe down. Also, there is no good evidence Jesus Christ existed, awww.

[@vmasing1965]

@@bellingdog That's definitely a false claim. No this is not something "us Christians" believe or have even heard about. Making things up as you go I see...

[@barrackobama2422]

Metatron: *starts talking about hair* Me:*skips ahead 1.5 min* Metatron: "And noone EVER brings up facial hair" Me: "Good Lord" 😅

[@johnathansaegal3156]

01:38 ... this is from the spoof film by Monty Python "Life of Brian". That is supposed to be Brian's mom (the people got confused and thought Brian was Jesus. They wouldn't leave him alone. This scene is his mom telling the crowds Brian is not the Messiah, just a naughty boy, not the sinless Christ).

[@anom5389]

Yes please make a part 2 of this one i always love your jesus/bible topics

[@mickey23052]

I agree with you: Jesus was a very important person to his followers, so determining where he was born was central to his identity. His family tree was also very important, especially in the Jewish tradition!

[@Draugh39]

There are two *different* family trees given in the bible. This support the case, which many bible scholars agree with, that they are made up in order to try to link Jesus to King David. However, as Christians state that Joseph was not Jesus biological father, that really is a mote point as Jesus, for that very reason, cannot be the Messiah of the Old Testament. This because that Messiah has to be of King David's lineage on his *fathers* side, as tribal affiliation, according to Jewish Law and the Bible, only follows the father. The maternal line determines if you are Jewish, the paternal line which tribe you belong to. This is why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. He has no paternal lineage to King David.

[@2Fast2Furiouso]

Messiah Ben David is not inherently disqualified of his Fathers lineage as Mary also shared David as an ancestor, one common verse rabbinic Jews try to swat to stump Christian’s is the word used for virgin in the book of Isaiah as simply meaning young woman but the word doesn’t necessarily mean simply young woman, in fact it’s the same word used for Moses’ sister who was never married and thus a virgin (one of multiple examples of the use of almah) when we see Isaiah 7 this passage has multiple medieval rabbinic interpretations including that this is a messianic passage. Joseph being the adoptive father is not a problem as he is a descendant of David and so is Mary.

[@stefanodadamo6809]

​@@Draugh39Bibi Netanyahu manifestly is 🙄

[@Draugh39]

​​@@2Fast2Furiouso There is no mention of Mary's lineage in the bible. The two lineages given are clearly stated as being that of Joseph. What I think you are referring to is an unsupported idea by Annius of Viterbo, now mostly remembered for his fabrications of history, whose forgeries and interpolations started to become uranvelled in mid 16th century. This claim, that Mary's lineage is found in the bible (Luke 3:23-38), is one of his fabrications. I suggest you look it up.

[@Draugh39]

@@2Fast2Furiouso >"Jews try to swat to stump Christian’s is the word used for virgin in the book of Isaiah" This is in Isaiah 7. I suggest you read the whole chapter as you are taking everything out of context. If you do read it you see that this story is not about the Messiah at all but rather about God talking to Isaiah and asking him to give comfort to King Ahaz, who was worried about Judah being invaded and defeated in war. Isaiah was then to tell the king that the King would get a sign. I quote (YLT Isaiah 7: 14-16) "14 Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin [rather "Maiden"] is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel, 15 Butter and honey he doth eat, When he knoweth to refuse evil, and to fix on good. 16 For before the youth doth know To refuse evil, and to fix on good, Forsaken is the land thou art vexed with, because of her two kings." This is clearly not about Jesus (who was not called Immanuel) or the time when he supposedly lived (as Judea was already defeated and run by Rome at the time of Jesus, as too was was Assyria and Egypt). It was about King Ahaz and what happened in King Ahaz time.

[@SVgamer72]

“When you're chewing on life's gristle, don't grumble; give a whistle, and this'll help things turn out for the best. And... always look on the bright side of life...”

[@dracotias]

Dudu dududu du du

[@Кивис-ч3й]

If life seems jolly rotten There's something you've forgotten And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing When you're feeling in the dumps Don't be silly chumps Just purse your lips and whistle, that's the thing And Always look on the bright side of life

[@ostsan8598]

He wasn't the messiah, he was a very naughty boy.

[@MarkHorton-n3t]

​​@@ostsan8598Jesus IS the Messiah. Present tense.He is risen.

[@NeilHawkins-k5q]

@@MarkHorton-n3t😂

[@hyacinthlynch843]

"Hey, noble ones." Love that intro. Love these videos.

[@davidtucker9498]

Slight correction to Metatron playing Devil's Advocate, Josephus and a couple Roman sources refer to Jesus as a sorcerer, so they acknowledged that Jesus was known for preforming miracles.

[@revcrussell]

Different Jesus. There are only two mentions of Jesus in Josephus, and both could be forgeries. One is almost certainly is a forgery and the second only mentions that "Christians" exist, not Jesus himself.

[@threetoadsloth]

​@@revcrussell*citation needed

[@revcrussell]

@@threetoadsloth _On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt_ or _Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus_ the latter is peer reviewed.

[@stephengray1344]

@@revcrussell The last time I checked, Josephus scholars pretty much universally think that the passage describing Jesus' crucifixion has been altered by a later scribe, but not that it is an outright forgery. And none of them dispute the reference to the death of Jesus' brother James. And when you claim that one of Richard Carrier's books has been peer-reviewed, what you actually mean is that Carrier claims it was peer-reviewed but has never provided any evidence of this, and that when asked to confirm if it had been his publisher refused to comment.

[@simonpayne8252]

Well the modern bible texts have been selectively chosen / excluded and then have been transliterated from a purely theological perspective / bias in order to support the idea of monotheism and a power grab by the church. Words like almighty, on high and glory have all been added.

[@jordansmith1541]

21:36 actually, Greek was a very common language during that time because of the Macedonian empire and successor kingdoms. It was a trade language, the language of education, and so forth. In fact, Greek is so important that the scriptures are translated into Greek in Alexandria (and don't forget, Joseph flees Judea to Egypt with Jesus). Also, Jesus quotes from the septuagen Greek Bible, not the Hebrew Bible that we find in the Dead Sea Scolls. It is more likely than not that he speaks Greek, given that he is able to communicate with pagans from different areas according to the Gospels. The fact that the gospels and epistles are in Greek and not Latin goes against your argument.

[@NeilHawkins-k5q]

Exactly. I agree with you. I’m very surprised at how Metatron was so dismissive of JC speaking Greek.

[@tomhalla426]

Being multilingual is not uncommon in border areas. Speaking Aramaic and Greek is not unlikely.

[@lonerider5933]

12:05 Spartacus was a slave and he has way more records than Jesus

[@benetgamingchanel4055]

@lonerider5933 Spartacus rebelled against Rome, which is why we have more records of him than Jesus. Also, why are you replying to this comment? I think you might have accidentally written in this comment since you wrote it for Metatron to see.

[@stevied3400]

The gospels and epistles being in Greek does not go against his argument since Jesus didn’t write the New Testament. And also Greek was the lingua Franca at the time so it makes sense to write in Greek so that the most amount of people can read it.

[@matthewneuendorf5763]

It's important to remember that the region was hellenistic for much longer than it was roman, and Greek would have been the common language of pretty much the entire eastern Mediterranean even under Roman rule. The New Testament was entirely written in Greek. When referring to pagans, it used the term "greek" rather than "roman." The traditions of the Church are that Greek was the predominant international language outside of state contexts. The signs on the cross would likely have been INRI, INBI, and whatever the Hebrew or Aramaic version would have been (Latin and Greek as well as the local language). Of course, Jesus being God would certainly have been able to know and to speak any language He chose, or even to be understood by anyone while speaking whatever language He wished. Christians were first referred to as such in Antioch during the initial waves of apostolic preaching.

[@aae7583]

"Greek would have been the common language of pretty much the entire eastern Mediterranean even under Roman rule. "

[@bartolo498]

Yes, Greek was the common language in the region, not Latin, despite the Romans. It was common among "normal people", shown also by the fact that several disciples are only/mainly know by Greek names, e.g. Peter's brother Andreas, also a fisherman, not a "posh" person. Latin seems not to have ever gained a firm hold in the Eastern Mediterrean (except for Roman administrative centers) because even in late antiquity when Constantinople evenutally replaced Rome Greek remained more common. In fact there was apparently already a language barrier among 4th-5th century Church fathers because westerners like Augustine had little or poor Greek and Easterners preferred Greek to Latin. The Western mediterrenean might have been more bilingual in the 1st century AD because Greek was still so common there (Marseille, Sicily, southern Italy had all been Greek colonies before Roman) but the Eastern part was Greek speaking, not Latin.

[@victorpulis5113]

Jesus was not God! he never said he was and no jew would even imagine the messiah to be God. mesiah means anointed and all Jw=ewish kings were mesiahs and called sons of God which didn't mean they were really Gods 'sons'! that's a pagan belief and we find many such example in greek and Roman mythologies.Roman empereos declared themselves gods and elected many of their families as gods.Octavianus made Julius Caesar a god when he was assassinated for example.

[@aaaaaaa7697]

@@victorpulis5113 read John 1:1, then 1: 14.

[@matthewneuendorf5763]

@victorpulis5113 Everyone would have known exactly what He meant when He called Himself "I Am." Remember also exactly what charges the Jewish authorities were constantly trying to level against Him before switching to treason and sedition charges before the Roman governor.

[@cooking_with_cat_hair1810]

I enjoyed this very much and I hope you continuewith more of the religious topics, possibly include other religions. It's very nice to listen along to something along these lines while I work. It's cold and raining, my cat is purring away on my lap while I verify patient coverage, check claim status and listen to Metatron getting pedantic 😅 All I need is a cup of hot cocoa.

[@TheSignofJonah777]

Real dude, real followers, real opposition.

[@tomdouge6618]

Read the New Testament by the books Time-of-Writing. Start with the 7 authenticized Pauline epistles, Mark, etc. and you will see the evolution of Jesus and Christianity as they become less mythological

[@guillermoelnino]

@@tomdouge6618 sure thing atheist

[@tomdouge6618]

@@guillermoelnino I really don't understand what you meant by "sure thing atheist". There is no sure thing in the term "atheist". Besides the pop meaning, it is over-broadly used for agnostics and those who are not followers of some religious leader or follow organized rites. It can also include (by being agnostic) those who study and even pursue different ways of experiencing spirituality without committing to recognize only one persona or pantheon (New Age, etc). And, of course, it can be carelessly thrown at anybody or people one group considers heretical

[@guillermoelnino]

@@tomdouge6618 y ou believe in fairytales like the g overnment controls the weather a man in a dress is a real woman what grows inside the womb of a human adult female is anything but human

[@CharlesRogers-sv4in]

I'm favoured only God knows how much I praise Him, $230k every 4weeks! I now have a big mansion and can now afford anything and also support God’s work and the church.

[@CharlesRogers-sv4in]

Only God knows how much grateful i am. After so much struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!

[@janiejohnson-hv]

Wow that's huge, how do you make that much monthly?

[@janiejohnson-hv]

I'm 37 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

[@CharlesRogers-sv4in]

It's Ms. Susan Jane Christy doing, she's changed my life.

[@CharlesRogers-sv4in]

I started pretty low, though, $5000 thereabouts. The return came massive. Joey is in school doing well, telling me of new friends he's meeting in school. Thank you Susan Christy, you're a miracle.

[@hafluq2979]

I'm a simple gentile, I see Italian Jesus upload, I like

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"What Do We Really Know About Jesus?" He was the groundskeeper where I work until his retirement a few years ago.

[@DivineAlchemyOfSouls]

what? dude was my weed man in high school… fucker really gets around

[@kmisad]

You're blessed then now!!!

[@82dorrin]

"What do we really know about Jesus?" I have a deep, personal relationship with Jesus. The guy makes the best quesadillas.

[@AnnalyFaith]

He’s @thebodylanguageguy 😂

[@stalhandske9649]

Is this a _Being there_ reference?

[@mikhaildas]

Imagine having a chair made by Jesus. Perfect ergonomics.

[@stevebartlett536]

He was most likely a stone mason.

[@DrBojangles007]

@@stevebartlett536he was a wood carpenter

[@ryanrevland4333]

He was most likely a scuba instructor

[@gregtronica3569]

he was most likely an icecream truck driver

[@gregkral4467]

Always a pleasure to see ya, Thanks for yet another I am sure to be a fascinating and accurate discussion. Rock on.

[@UnderratedBurnyBadger]

I enjoy watching you react to something you're actually enjoying reacting to. It's nice to not have to see you in metaphorical (or maybe literal) agony ALL the time. :P

[@Epsilonsama]

Disagree with the Latin one. Greek was the language of the Empire in the East and there were Greek speaking Legions by then.

[@ItalMiser117]

Greek speaking legions? Which ones?

[@stevied3400]

Greek was more common with the upper classes and traders. I’m with him on Latin being more likely for Jesus to know over Greek. Yes, Greek was very important esp in that part of the empire so I’m sure Jesus knew at least some Greek.

[@MR-MR-ud5oo]

@@ItalMiser117 Well they weren't Legions per say, but Alexanders Armies weren't speaking Latin, that's for sure.

[@joeskill4663]

Hear is a thought 💭, maybe he knew all 4 languages..🤷‍♂️

[@RestingJudge]

​@@joeskill4663yeah that's kind of my thought. If he was a builder, like Joseph, you're building for all types of clients and hiring your skills to many different bosses, from Aramaic speaking folks, to Greek business men, to Latin nobles who might have known Greek but were more comfortable with their mother tongue. Just makes some business sense to qt least learn the basics at that place and time.

[@jonf4287]

I think the strongest counter argument that his birthplace was altered is that early christianity wasn't like 12 dudes all shaking hands. By the time the gospels were compiled, there were multiple churches around the Mediterranean and Asia Minor. There would have most definitely been some sort of documented council to change the birthplace, or at least a church or bishop which rebuked the change, perhaps even a minor schism over such a change.

[@albertofernandez2490]

so why do you think the birth place is mentioned in only 2 of 4 gospels

[@jaredorozco3188]

​@@albertofernandez2490 Because only two people needed to write down his birthplace for their purposes. Mark was quite probably the first gospel. He was not an eyewitness to the accounts and was transcribing the memoirs of Peter. The events aren't all in order as it wasn't his purpose. It's not in very great detail as he wasn't there. There are a lot of things Mark doesn't say. Matthew is next. He does go into much more detail and talks about the birthplace. Luke is next. He goes into even more depth, starting with the conception of John the baptist, about a year before Jesus was born. John is the last gospel. His gospel very clearly isn't standalone. He really only writes to fill in details the others missed. Things such as the birth of Christ, the birth of John, the days in the desert, and most of the book, really doesn't repeat anything the others already said. It wasn't the purpose of the book. Only two gospel writers mention the birth because only two gospels were meant to be complete standalone histories. Mark was an abbreviated history of the ministry of Jesus. It starts and ends abruptly. John only writes personal testimony from what he saw and heard the others didn't talk about already.

[@SockieTheSockPuppet]

​@jaredorozco3188 And in addition, Matthew was very detail-oriented, and really wanted to hammer home the fact that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, hence his inclusion of Jesus' genealogy. Furthermore, Luke was primarily recording the eyewitness testimony of people that he was in correspondence with, which included Mary the Mother of Jesus (that's why he knew the early life details), and because he was Greek, he also focused on the parables so that they could be spread even more.

[@jedsithor]

@@jaredorozco3188 Matthew is trying to fulfil prophecies he made up from a mistranslated version of the Hebrew Bible, that's why he includes the birth narrative and Matthew and Luke don't match each other whereas John, which doesn't talk about the birth narrative, is writing pure religious dogma. Mark doesn't write about it because either it's not important or he has no idea. The most likely scenario is that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth. The Bethlehem stories are basically creation myths.

[@jedsithor]

In Matthew's case at least, it's because he was trying to tie Jesus to non-existent properties. Fun fact, Matthew quoted scripture to show that Jesus was mentioned as prophecy except that the version of scripture Matthew read from was a Greek mistranslation, not the original Hebrew. So not only is Matthew making stuff up, he's not even using the right version of the text to make his claims.

[@Volaer1]

21:20 I have to respectfully disagree with you. From a historical perspective κοινη Greek was the dominant language in 1st century Galilee which makes it incredibly improbable that Jesus would not have spoken it. See: Scott D. Charlesworth, The Use of Greek in Early Roman Galilee: The Inscriptional Evidence Re-examined (2016) It was certainly not a posh language spoken by elites. Rather the lingua franca of the eastern provinces of the empire. This is also why the Christian Bible (LXX + NT) was written in Greek. Latin in contrast was not really spoken that much in the East. Certainly not by non-Romans.

[@jossimbyr]

Another excellent video! Have you done the Gospel of Judas yet? I'm relatively new to the channel and haven't found it through a cursory search, but I would definitely appreciate your take on it.

[@BobLoblaw-sf1cg]

Love the idea of updated videos with new info! Please do that if you can.

[@82dorrin]

1:58 I love that you paused it at that exact moment. You knew exactly what you were doing. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Arathalion19]

If Jesus really spoke to crowds in the Decapolis, wouldn't it make sense he spoke Greek.

[@michaelwarenycia7588]

Multilingualism is common in Europe today. I'd imagine in the middle east back then (lots of small jurisdictional divisions, numerous cultures living close together, centres of trade and maritime travel etc) multilingualism would also be fairly common

[@arnoldvezbon6131]

God can speak all languages.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

​@@michaelwarenycia7588 I agree with you. Thanks

[@TheLukanda]

​@@arnoldvezbon6131So can the Devil according to your religion.

[@arnoldvezbon6131]

@@TheLukanda What is your point? Nothing matters according to yours so...

[@ferrisbueller9991]

She was a lot better than I guessed from the start, the start being "was Jesus a very naughty boy."

[@carlosfuentes5207]

First time listener and viewer this morning from Texas of Mexica/Native /Mexican descent and I love history and I want to say that I appreciate your honesty about being biased , I'm not a Christian my wife is and has convinced me back into the church but I have the internal struggle because of my indigenous identity, I love your topic and video of the moors because I just found out that I have a slight percentage of Moroccan blood , so far I'm loving your content 🙏 thank you for your hard work

[@mrh4900]

It’s okay to be Anglo Saxon

[@CMc-v7z]

Or Pict/Celt like me 😊

[@revilokid]

By this point Anglo Saxon and especially pict/celt got to be outed terms for native English and Scottish people.

[@johnnygreenface4195]

​@@CMc-v7z groups that haven't existed for like 1500 years 😭

[@stranger299a]

Or a North Germanic native

[@pabloalvez915]

Its ok to be a cool earthling.

[@rockzalt]

I tend to believe Jesus was predisposed to being a polyglot. Having the minimum amount of comprehension to get by with Greek and Latin but being fluently bilingual with Hebrew and Aramaic.

[@pdraggy]

what about growing up in Egypt?

[@marziobruno8055]

He is God so of course he knows every language invented by humans.

[@pdraggy]

@@marziobruno8055 lol I guess so haha! Even th imaginary language me and my friend made lol.

[@marziobruno8055]

@@pdraggy But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Jeremiah 29:11

[@dirt_dert_durt]

​@@marziobruno8055Knows now, yes, but He didn't come out of the womb preaching in all tongues. Even He had to increase in His wisdom amd stature lile the rest of us

[@NeilHawkins-k5q]

Considering Jesus came from Nazareth, a mere hamlet 2,000 years ago, he would have visited the nearby city of Sepphoris, a Greek speaking city from the time of the Seleucids.

[@adamorly2971]

I've actually wondered if we was involved in building the Greek theatre there.. built around 15 BCE.

[@thomasrobinson8789]

@@adamorly2971 , that would be possible, but that's a question for the man himself.

[@tomdouge6618]

Around the year Jesus was supposed to have been born (according to Matthew), all of the roads of Galilee had rotting bodies hanging off of crosses. They were rebels who attempted to take the arsonal of the capital of Galilee Sepphoris. There never weren't zealots, assassins, would-be messiahs and their heralds

[@adamorly2971]

@@thomasrobinson8789 haha true.

[@adamorly2971]

@@tomdouge6618 I like this. Read the temptation narratives in light of what you've said and someone wonders why Jesus didn't vie for power?

[@onemoreround6820]

Metatron is uploading almost everyday is amazing. I love the fact that the quality has not decreased. I wish I had not subscribed so that I could subscribe again.

[@ostihpem]

Did Metatron tackle R. Carrier‘s position? Because I find Carriers arguments pretty convincing to doubt Jesus‘ real existence.

[@maatjusticia3954]

I don't know if he did, but even secular scholars like Ehrman shy away from confronting minimal mythicism seriously. I think Carrier has put forward the most solid and comprehensive theory on the historicity of Jesus, and it's a bitter pill to swallow, especially Paul's epistles, as I've mentioned in a comment.

[@ostihpem]

@@maatjusticia3954 The problem of an historic Jesus is the lack of any non-christian accounts. That is the difference maker. If we had one!!! Jewish text that criticizes Jesus‘ followers or his ideas we‘d have an existential proof by presupposition. But there is nothing but the Gospels and some forged accounts and some general remarks (Tacitus) that prove the cult but not the dude. For instance Jesus could be a compound from two actual men like if you‘d combine Obama and M.Luther King to create Obama King which never existed. This is doable in a society of illiterate people with all kind of false beliefs, no archives and 50+ years after the fact.

[@BenAryeh3131Arye]

CAME AS SOON AS I SAW THE NOTIFICATION! LOVE YOU METATRON ❤ ALWAYS HERE TO WATCH MY BROTHER IN CHRIST 🐏☦️

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

How many orphans have you adopted?

[@leonpaulbolissian5387]

First time I've heard a Religious person respecting his place as an Academic. I'm an Atheist, but very interested myself in reading religious scriptures, gospels, etc. And as an Atheist I respect the freedom of people to believe in what they want to believe. With more people like you I think we can actually have a healthy and respectful arena for very interesting and intriguing debates between all sorts of people.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I'm a simple Christian believer and I agree with your observations. Thanks

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

So you respect people in believing their rebelious sons should get murdered?

[@AngraMango]

​@@PROVOCATEURSK What are u talking about?

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

Answering to a comment made by someone named "provocateur" is a waste of time...

[@Goiaba308]

​@@PROVOCATEURSKdrop the pipe

[@TriScaleCreations]

Regarding Jesus outfit, don't forget his station. He was a Rabbi, and would have worn a Rabbi's tunic, and we know it was a seamless tunic (which was highly valued, hence why the Roman soldier gambled for it).

[@patttrick]

Nah to be a Rabbi ,he would have to have been trained by an official Rabbi from a school of thought like Gamiel however The baptism in the Jordan was a sort of ordination.

[@Chtulhu1204]

And if he wasn't a confirmed Rabbi, he would have been seen as a Rebbe. In other words a great teacher. At least in the eyes of his followers. I think that the Baal Shem Tov, of Hasidic fame, would be a more modern equivalent to Jesus. Or even Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who died in 1994 would probably be the most recent example. Note that I'm not talking about Jesus in the figure of god, but Jesus as a preacher and teacher. Which is very obvious was how Jesus started out. If it was the intention of god that his son should try to be a humble teacher first, or if it just happened to be so. That's esoterics for teologists and others to discus.

[@TriScaleCreations]

@@patttrick I am taking a Biblical worldview perspective, and in the Bible, He is referred to on multiple occasions as "Rabbi". Remember, He was 30 when He started His ministry, which lasted 3 years, and other than a snippet of His birth and teenage years, that's all that we have recorded of His life. So you assume He WASN'T trained by an official Rabbi, despite numerous individuals (including a Pharisee, Nicodemus) addressing Him as such, whereas I take these things as evidence that He WAS. And to my original point, seamless tunics were highly valued, and one of the few luxuries afforded to a Rabbi due to the Jewish priestly Tradition (I'm no expert, and I'm speaking based on my understanding, so I may be wrong on that front).

[@YSLRD]

Yes. People keep calling Him a carpenter. A) Joseph was not a carpenter, likely a stone mason. B) His garment and title, and the fact that he could read, suggest a more educated profession.

[@stefanodadamo6809]

​@@YSLRDCarpenter WAS an important profession there and then. And allowed, indeed required, at least minimal education.

[@michael.waddell]

Brilliant, loving this kind of content from you

[@RomanianReptile]

Excellent review! It allows you to show your objectivity quite effectively, but at the same time stay true to your standards and morals. I'd love to see more of this. Thank you!

[@SDSwampert]

I don't believe that Metatron is 42 years old. That man is early thirties at most but more likely mid to late twenties.

[@michaelwarenycia7588]

Clean living, I suppose

[@tubekulose]

​@@michaelwarenycia7588 I just turned 47 last month and Raffaello and I look about the same age but unlike him I'm a heavy smoker and used to be a heavy drinker until two years ago. So no clean living in my case. I just might be quite well cured and chemically preserved. 😉

[@markb8573]

Ashkenazi Jews are a Jewish ethnic group that originated in Central and Eastern Europe, which is why they tend to have lighter skin. I believe you were referring to Sephardic or Mizrahi Jews, who are ethnic groups that originated in the Middle East and North Africa. However, since Jesus lived before the Jewish people were exiled from Judea and dispersed to different regions, he most likely had brown skin, similar to people from other Middle Eastern countries.

[@Valehass]

The Greek and Roman Empires extended well into north Africa and the middle east for thousands of years. Are we to just assume that white Europeans had zero impact on the countries they conquered?

[@jwhippet8313]

Ashkenazi Jews originate as a distinct division in the ethnic group in Rhineland. They arrived there from Italy hundreds of years before they started being called Ashkenazi. Ashkenaz is medieval Hebrew for the Rhineland. Most Jews in Italy arrived there as slaves following the Jewish revolt only 40 years after Jesus died. Meanwhile, modern Middle Eastern people are darker than those of his day as there was a massive influx of sub Sahara DNA during the eastern slave trade.

[@Noblebird02]

It's not like Poles, Russians and Germans decided to convert to Judaism. Ashkenazi Jews ultimately originate from Judea, they are descended from freedom fighters against Roman rule who were enslaved.

[@catocall7323]

Even today if you look at people from Palestine and Syria they are a lot whiter than people generally visualize them to look like, with green eyes and even blondish hair being somewhat common.

[@jwhippet8313]

@@catocall7323 , some of that - like the blonde or red hair and light eyes - is due to western Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine being the region of the crusader states.

[@thejakyl1369]

I have argued that all New Testament writings were finished before 70 AD (not me alone, but others as well). I know a late dating is popular, and I know why, however Jewish culture would never have skipped over the razing of the temple as though it did not happen. NT writings nowhere mention the abomination of desolation, the destruction of the Holy of Holies. This simply would not be the case. Especially since it fulfills Jesus' prophecy that not one stone would be laid upon another. That NO apostle or disciple in the NT mentions this is another very heavy clue for early dating.

[@jedsithor]

Except that the Gospels weren't written by Jews. They were written by Greek Christians. The names on the Gospels aren't the names of the authors, they're names that were added to the texts later on and Christians then came to believe that they were written by disciples matching those names (or scribes of said disciples).

[@Gentleman130]

@@jedsithor evidence?

[@thejakyl1369]

@@jedsithor I would suggest reading up on first century history a bit more. Nothing you stated is supported by the facts. A basic understanding of transmission of texts from the time period may also be fruitful here. Just because a scribe may have written the words of an apostle does not mean that those words are not in fact from that apostle. If you are going to make anything written by a scribe suspect, then nearly all ancient writings become worthless. This is not how textual criticism is done.

[@tomasrocha6139]

They literally say "Let the reader understand" immediately after the prophecy the Temple would be destroyed, because it had already been destroyed when they were written

[@thejakyl1369]

@@tomasrocha6139 This simply is not the case. A reading of Matthew 24 shows this cannot be so. The disciples asked Jesus when the temple would be destroyed, signaling the end of the age (v3) and Jesus did not answer with "it already happened, SEE!" No, rather He gave a list of general signs to look for when such a thing would happen (v4-14). He then then states that when you see the holy place destroyed, people should flee to the mountains (v15-21). You are taking the line "let the reader understand" out of context and making a pretext here. Jesus is clearly speaking about an event that has yet to happen and that will clearly be known when it does happen. Had it already happened when this was written, His words would read as utter nonsense and be a clear attempt to fit in a fulfilled prophecy after the fact.

[@JonasJCampbell]

I started watching your video because i'm involved with an outlet called That Park Place and your perspective on Yasuke has been very informative. As a Christian I appreciate this video too. Great stuff.

[@shadowcat7987]

I really enjoy your videos. If possible, I would love it if you made one on the rebellion of the Maccabees. I feel that understanding the events mentioned in the books of the Maccabees requires a lot of historical knowledge because of all the historical figures involved, their changing alliances and their rise or fall.

[@TheSignofJonah777]

A good source for this kind of information regarding Christianity is inspiring philosophy. He is good at compiling and explaining biblical stories with historical commentary and evidence.

[@definitivamenteno-malo7919]

That sophist!?

[@TheSignofJonah777]

@@definitivamenteno-malo7919 😂

[@TransRoofKorean]

I'm glad that we've moved beyond what I heard FAR more often 15-30 years ago, the "lol Jesus wasn't even real" positions. You don't tend to hear that anymore outside of the r/atheists sort of crowd.

[@tomdouge6618]

You haven't heard of Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt", which is peer-reviewed by other historians? Or the more layman friendly version, "Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ"

[@TransRoofKorean]

@@tomdouge6618 The Teaching Company's "Early Christianities" was one of my favorite courses, which is much like that "Outer Space" one, I'm sure. But yeah, I wouldn't use "it's actually peer-reviewed" around me for credential points, I might spit

[@tomdouge6618]

@@TransRoofKorean I only mentioned the book being "peer reviewed" to distinguish it from those that have rigorous research and logic. Of course other historians have different perspectives, but honest historians can appreciate the efforts of one of their kind Richard Carrier's work points out that there is no definitive evidence even in the New Testament that meets the standards historians have set for other figures in history. We can assume Jesus existed, or we can take what we know from the earliest writers, Paul and Mark, and compare it with other dying-and-resurrecting gods. Osiris was different from the others in an Egyptian way; Dionysus in a Greek way; Mithra in an Aryan way; Attis in a Phrygian way. Jesus was in a Jewish way For most of them, apparently (a la Plutarch, etc), Hell was between the Earth and the Moon, 'Outer Space'

[@mrblackmamba117]

Indian Christians (from my region/language at least) call Jesus as "Yeshu"😊

[@Halo_Legend]

And Polish people call him Jezus, which sounds like "yezus". I think it's only the ridiculour english spelling that changed the "j" from "y" to "jey".

[@raukoring]

The biblical translation videos from metatron were the most fascinating videos from him. I wish he did hundreds more!

[@sarahjacks4390]

Another excellent video. I really enjoy the way you analyze things. There a letter supposedly from Pilate to emperor Tiberius concerning Jesus. It would be great to get your take on the authenticy of that letter. All the best to you.

[@Smh85]

Yes! Remake the video 1:17

[@foundingfarther]

Yes please

[@247tubefan]

I wonder how "Jesus Christ" became the expression for surprise and shock. 🤔

[@kregy7509]

As a replacement for curses? Since you shouldn't say curse words what else is Christian suppose to say instead? Religious names. In Czech we say "Ježišmarja" literally being just combination of Jesus and Maria.

[@Halo_Legend]

​@@kregy7509In Polish we say "Jezus Maria" and it sounds more like a "jezu smaria", which is kinda funny xD

[@Halo_Legend]

Maybe an abbreviation of a saying, like: "what in the name of our lord Jesus Christ has happened here?".

[@Halo_Legend]

Also makes me think of Kindom Come Deliverance with its "Jesus Christ be praised". In Polish we just abbreviate to "pochwalony" from "niech będzie pochwalony" ("praised" from "may [one] be praised"), and it's coming from even longer "niech będzie pochwalony Jezus Chrystus" (and you should reply "na wieki wieków, amen" so "for the ages of ages, amen").

[@spiffygonzales5160]

My guess is you'd see something scary and basically say his name asking for aid then it turned into another curse word.

[@Godrules]

Did Jesus use the Greek Septuagint? Here is some potential evidence that he did. In Luke 4:18, Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah and cites the Septuagint to declare that his ministry is to proclaim "recovery of sight to the blind". This is not in the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1. OR, it could be, that Jesus read from a Hebrew scroll that was more like the Dead Sea Scrolls, rather than the modern day Hebrew Masoretic scrolls, as the Dead Sea Scrolls more so match the Greek Septuagint than they do the Masoretic, thus indicating that the Hebrew scroll of Isaiah back in Jesus' time was more like the Greek Septuagint version.

[@Hello-bi1pm]

Isn't it currently considered a "bad translation"

[@SevPlays]

​@@Hello-bi1pmThe Septuagint or that particular passage?

[@Hello-bi1pm]

@@SevPlays I heard people dislike LXX, yes, the whole thing. Isn't there even some heresy about it?

[@SevPlays]

@@Hello-bi1pm I am not aware of anything I would consider a heresy about it. I think some of the folklore around it sounds like silliness but that is unrelated to the text itself. When the new testament is quoting from the old testament it is always using the Septuagint as far as I am aware. Or at least a version that is identical in the quotes. So clearly the NT authors had no problems with it. The Masoretic text comes way after Jesus' time so even if it is in the original language it is not neccesarily closer to the original texts. The dead sea scrolls and the Septuagint are basically the oldest texts we have whole/nearly whole. They are possibly from about the same time in origin and from what little I have seen they sometimes agree with each other in places where the Masoretic text goes haywire (I think). An example is Deut 32:8. The scrolls have the term for sons of god and the LXX has the greek angels of god which is what the LXX uses whenever sons of god is used in Hebrew. The Masoretic text pulls sons of Israel out of nowhere. There might have been some political reasons why someone did that to the Masoretic text or it is just a copy error. Personally I am glad that they all exist and are generally consistent.

[@Ford-wt8rn]

Just found your channel and it's fantastic. You should do a debunking marathon with someone like David Miano from World of Antiquity, would be a cool collaboration. Not that these reaction videos are debunking per se, I love the non- bullshit approach to your work.

[@angid7257]

I really enjoyed listening and would love to hear more from you both!😊

[@rbrainsop1]

People put way too much weight on the idea that things written down decades later aren't trustworthy simply because of the passage of time. If we were in San Diego, I could show you the exact house (on the corner of Landis and 42nd) where my grandpa was born. He lived in the area most of his life, and my mother grew up only a mile or two away. She's the one who took me there and showed me the house. But that was over 100 years ago, and my information is secondhand. Is it necessarily suspect because of that? Of course, that doesn't mean early sources should be automatically accepted without question. But they shouldn't be dismissed or treated as automatically unreliable simply because they were written down a few decades after the fact, which is the unfortunate tendency for a lot of people.

[@amyb.6368]

I think people also tend to mix up the logic between things that were written down at the time and only read later vs. things that were written down AND read a lot later. People's memories deteriorate more the farther and farther they are from the actual happenstance.

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

If I was a smart god that wanted to deliver my message to the whole world, I would give my only source of information thousands of scribes that would speak every language. No wait, I would give every village a messiah at all times.

[@rbrainsop1]

@@PROVOCATEURSK The very concept of god is a being that by nature exists and reasons on a plane far beyond our own. So ideas about what we would do if we were god, while interesting, don't carry much weight. Also, considering how quickly and widely Christianity _did_ spread, and the longevity it's had, one could argue that the delivery of the message was incredibly effective as is.

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

You are totally right. I never thought of it, but I'm 26 years old and I could show ppl the places my grandparents lived and their parents lived and retell the story's that are a hundred years old. I think because we travel more nowadays ppl forget how tied ppl used to be to places. And once you were there and connected to it, you don't forget.

[@bewawolf19]

@@PROVOCATEURSK Mate, your random trolling is very weird.

[@charleshartley9597]

I find this one amusing because Metatron does his best to be aware of his biases, but I feel like he's a bit…touchy when it comes to stuff dealing with Jesus and his faith. In particular, I'm thinking of the question about starting a new faith and I am not so sure myself. I can't help but think of faith movements that have been coopted by others for their own personal benefit, and speaking as an anthropologist and archaeologist, that phenomenon is something we've seen elsewhere throughout especially early human history. Looking forward to part 2!

[@gedcaeneus4628]

Credentialcheckqueensayswaht! People like you always saying everybody else has a bias and you never look in the mirror except to flash a degree check.

[@charleshartley9597]

@@gedcaeneus4628 did I ever say I don't have a bias? No, and I don't know where you got a "degree check" from. I said that to demonstrate that I study human behavior and we have seen the co-opting of genuine ideological movements before. I only mention him being "touchy" about it because in so many other ways Metatron is very balanced about these things. I detected just a hint of bias toward Jesus intentionally doing so; to be fair, as is usual for him, he has the sources. From my perspective, though, I can't help but wonder if that simple idea of a Reformation of Judaism didn't morph into something else when Jesus passed. Anyway, hopefully that clears things up. Look, we can have a discussion or you can lob weird accusations at me about things I did not do; if that's how you interpreted what I said, that's on you, friend.

[@honkyvanwildebeest8926]

I find it hard to fathom that the two other men crucified alongside Jesus, joined onlookers in mocking him. Whether they were also nailed to their crosses or simply bound to them, they were also dying slowly from suffocation and facing their own deaths. Strange moment to pick to be an arsehole.

[@davepugh2519]

People do all sorts of strange things in fairy tales.

[@guillermoelnino]

@@davepugh2519 Like believe a man in a dress is a woman just because he says so?

[@scottmcrawford]

Thank you, Metatron, for sharing your knowledge and expertise. Your videos are always appreciated.

[@aneyesky]

This is why I’m a big fan of your channel.Great balance of Passion and intellect.

[@garrettdoublin4061]

He didn't create Christianity. He IS Christianity.

[@Michael_Gendron]

He didn’t create Christianity. He was born a Jew, lived his life as a Jew, and died a Jew. Christianity was developed after his death, largely by Paul who never met the man.

[@quercingtime]

@@Michael_Gendron That's just false and you know it Pauls gospel is complementary to the others and has always been cosidered correct

[@kilors206]

@@Michael_Gendron the earliest piece of the Gospels do in fact go the 1st Century, in fact, the Apostles instantly stated a resurrected Jesus and New Covenant, while they were hunted down. The idea that Paul created Christianity is ahistorical, in fact, there was a sect that emerged in the 7th century called Paulicianism which was deemed heretical, because they rejected some aspects of Christ's divinity, basing their works solely on Paul of Tarsus. Christianity was developed by the Apostles, not Paul, he plays an important role but Paul gains inspiration from the Apostles

[@mdl2427]

​@@Michael_Gendron the disciples who knew Jesus were happy with his teachings

[@GeneralYen]

@NotGuilty2112 On the road of Damascus... And in his mind.

[@trollerbladdering]

I want ALL of the videos about Christ and Christianity. ✝

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

Yet you avoid meeting god in person. Just like 2 billion other "believers". Anything to avoid death, right?

[@threetoadsloth]

​@PROVOCATEURS your reasoning makes absolutely no sense

[@trollerbladdering]

@@PROVOCATEURSK who hurt you as a child?

[@Alieth]

@@trollerbladderingpossibly a Christian priest

[@trollerbladdering]

@@Alieth Not a priest. Just a man trying to reach Theosis.

[@TheSentry66]

Great episode! Looking forward to part 2!

[@darkjannn]

Great video, looking forward to the next half!

[@maatjusticia3954]

The first source we have on this apocalyptic Jewish sect, later called Christians, is Paul. If we have to believe him, the apostles (not disciples) only knew about a celestial being who manifested through visions (that's it, hallucinations) and secret messages they found encoded in the scriptures. The Lord's supper, the crucifixion, and the resurrection all came in visions. In Paul's letters (around 20,000 words) we find no nativity, no virgin Mary, no baptism by John, no disciples, no miracles, no teachings to the people, no Herod, no Pilate, no empty tomb, ... in sum, no earthly Jesus. And he wrote 2 - 3 decades after Jesus' supposed death. That's what we really know. The anonymous texts, the gospels which made it into the canon are later fiction history. Of course, that's my opinion based on what I've read, and I could be completely wrong. On the video, I'd like to applaud Metatron/Raffaello for his honesty when admitting his bias (we all have) and his effort to separate academic tasks from beliefs. Great work.

[@hipatiaalejandria4823]

So, the first Christians didn't know about this rabbi character of the Gospels. That's interesting.

[@ivantumanov1015]

God might have been Jesus' baby daddy, but Josef was the step dad who stepped up.

[@billybillerson2555]

Blessed are those that hear God's word and obey.

[@nathangraham2189]

St. Joseph bears the distinct honor of being “the savior or the Savior”, for he protected Jesus from Herod when He was a babe. Hence the high place of honor St. Joseph holds among Catholics and our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters.

[@v0rtexbeater]

I'm not even Christian but that sentence feels like blasphemy

[@nathangraham2189]

@@v0rtexbeater At first blush perhaps but it is undeniably true. Joseph saved Jesus’ life as a baby. He took Jesus and fled Herod. He protected him. It’s not blasphemous therefore at all; but rather is a statement that further emphasizes the radical, shocking nature of the Incarnation. The idea that God almighty would literally become a helpless human baby is a scandal, if it’s not shocking then you’re not really taking it seriously I think.

[@FRANKTHEOWL]

Disgusting comment

[@RojirigoD]

As far as I know, there is no evidence that the gospel writers, who wrote decades after Jesus' death were close friends of Jesus. First, the gospels were written many years after his death by individuals who were likely more focused on spreading the growing legend of Jesus within the context of an emerging cult, similar to other apocryphal writings. This time gap allows for the possibility of intentional additions to the narratives in order to fulfill prophecies. Second, even the oldest surviving copies of the gospels are written in Greek, not Aramaic, which raises questions about their authenticity from of apostles, especially considering that the disciples themselves were likely illiterate according to the same legends and would not have written in Greek, and these gospels were published anonymously.

[@joe5959]

Is this a reddit atheist copy/paste?

[@RojirigoD]

@@joe5959 Not, just as far as I understand from the critical analysis of the gospels, but not only atheists, even some Christians also share this view. There are Christians who, for example, place more emphasis on the letters of Paul, which have clear authorship, and see the gospels more as metaphors or allegories. I studied in a Catholic school, and even some priests have a similar perspective, viewing certain stories in the gospels as metaphors with elements of truth passed down through oral tradition and not directly from apostles.

[@Akio-fy7ep]

@@RojirigoD Regarding the gospels as (at least) principally fictional is absolutely mainstream in critical scholarship, even among avowed believers. 'Mark' himself instructs us to treat his that way, immediately after his fig tree story.

[@definitivamenteno-malo7919]

​@@joe5959 Pack it up, boys. He mentioned /reddit. Therefore everything is invalid

[@johnharvey1055]

What about Emanuel? God with us? What is the linguistic origin of that name? You probably have already touched on that in a previous video. Apologies for my ignorance of your catalog of content. I like your videos a lot! Definite fan! Also love the Metatron channel name! That's my favorite archangel. Go Enoch!

[@lorraineyoung102]

Really enjoyed this discussion, looking forward to part 2 😁

[@thatfatman6978]

1:35 If you don't know "The Life of Brian" I find it extremely difficult to respect your opinion on religious history.

[@paradisecityX0]

The most important man in history

[@iammicah895]

Who, Siddhartha Gautama? Pretty important yes. But I would say that so many inventions have increased the quality of human lives so tremendously that you can’t really pick one man.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@iammicah895 Yeshua bar Yosef is far more important than Buddha, Zarathusdra, and Muhammad combined

[@Andreyas-ou7fq]

​@@paradisecityX0That's kind of a controversial thing to say but if we believe he existed he would have influenced Western history significantly.

[@paradisecityX0]

​@@Andreyas-ou7fq He existed. There's no "if" about it. And "significantly" is an understatement

[@iammicah895]

@@paradisecityX0 how many wars have been fought in the name of Christ? How many people how been slaughtered, subjugated, wiped out in the name of Christ? How many people, worldwide, who had their own Gods, their own belief system systematically destroyed in the name of Christ?

[@thermalreboot]

One of the things that really bugs me is the insistence that the Gospels were written in the 2nd century. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, didn't date their manuscripts the same way we might when making a diary entry. Truth is we don't really know when these documents were written, but they always say the 2nd century to make is seem like there wasn't a purposeful attempt to record what Jesus said and the deeper meaning of his words. It doesn't make sense to me that the Apostles wouldn't write things down so that the churches they founded wouldn't have had something to work with when they left a region to bring the word to another.

[@stalhandske9649]

If my memory of Finnish high school classes serves, the earliest gospel (Mark as per academic consensus) was composed either just prior or immediately after Judean rebellion, so ~70AD, Luke and Matthew both taking from it and so being a bit younger (these three are thus _synoptic,_ "looking-from-same" but their order of authority remains an issue of debate) while John was probably written somewhere in first half of 2nd century and possibly aimed at convincing more gentile audience with little prior familiarity to Christianity. So the fact you implied remains, that core elements of Gospels were put to paper well within the span of living memory, with people who had lived during Christ's ministry still possibly alive. This should lend them considerable wight of credence in a discerning scholar's eye.

[@PROVOCATEURSK]

Nobody thought what Jesus said was important enought to write it down. They rightfully didn´t believe his stories.

[@stalhandske9649]

@@PROVOCATEURSK At least you've aptly named your account.

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

They always say "the gospel were written...". But the 4 biblical gospel writings aren't the most early Christian writings. The first Epistles were written at the very latest in 50 AD, which places them incredibly close to Jesus' lifetime. To assume that multiple people spent a lot of money to write dozens of letters about a fictional character and still matched their details is beyond fantasy.

[@thermalreboot]

@@dyzmadamachus9842 indeed.

[@Bradchacha]

Just shared this with my brothers and sisters For the equipping of the saints May the Lord bless you and your family, Metatron🙏🏾

[@wilb6657]

@ 3:09-I think 99.99 percent of folks actually get Jesus' name wrong! There is a video on here of a guy from one of the last places in the Middle East where they still speak Aramaic. Would you happen to know what he said? He said that in Aramaic, the name "Yeshua" is PROPERLY pronounced "EEE-SHOW". NOT "Yeh-shoo-ah". Now, the reason why this fact is interesting, is because Arabic is pretty close to Aramaic. And in Arabic, Jesus' name is "Isa", pronounced "EEE-SAH". So....it seems like most of us-even folks in academia-are mispronouncing Jesus' actual, historical name.

[@exophyrus6686]

Hello Metatron, I’d like to point out that while I do believe historical Jesus existed, your point about the authors of the Gospel being people close to Jesus is incorrect as far as we know. We know they reference second account sources when assembling the Gospel from their perspective, with Mark being the oldest. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, as well as an unknown collection of sayings known as the Q source for both of them, and unique sources for each (M source for Matthew, L source for Luke). The Gospel according to John is assembled a good while later, and it’s also apparent when analyzing the text as it has completely unique moments and quotes that none of the other 3 gospels include, suggesting that it used a different source. With this in mind, I think it’s entirely possible that along the line, people included elements and exaggerated moments to highlight Jesus. It’s natural, and I don’t think it’s necessarily lying, just entirely possible. It’s like a game of telephone where with each iteration, slight changes occur that sum up to something different than what the original was.

[@TheSignofJonah777]

They were collected stories sometimes. But these were at least some of the disciples not the 12 but they were certainly around Jesus.

[@randallsimmons391]

2 of the gospel authors walked with Jesus (Matthew and John, with John being a cousin) while Mark was a disciple of Peter and Luke a disciple of Paul. The Q source is apocryphal and unverified coming from much later than the 4 gospels. John was written by the apostle while on Patmos and well before 100AD and was independent of the other 3 which are called synoptic due to their similarity in writing style and themes. I doubt the veracity of exaggeration as oral tradition was how biblical tradition as well as Hebrew tradition was passed down from generation to generation. Prophets of the day were tested by city elders and if they got a significant amount of the Torah incorrect, they would be stoned as false prophets. So getting a story correct was critical to 1st century Jews. The difference you might be alluding to would be perspective of a witnessed event.

[@Spacemongerr]

@@randallsimmons391 That is what Christian tradition teaches, it is not reality. Scholars have long well understood that the names attributed to the gospel authors are not their actual names, and that none of the gospels were written by anyone who met Jesus.

[@randallsimmons391]

@@Spacemongerr Disagree. The church fathers and those in the 1st century church all agreed on the authorship of all the gospels and epistles except for the letter to the Hebrews.

[@exophyrus6686]

@@randallsimmons391 Modern scholarship generally disputes this idea, as the texts were written 40 to 60 years after Jesus’ death, likely by individuals who were not eyewitnesses to the events they describe. 1. Mark is considered the earliest gospel, written around 70 AD, but scholars believe the author was not Mark the Evangelist, a companion of Peter, as traditionally thought. Instead, it likely reflects various earlier traditions rather than eyewitness accounts  . 2. Matthew and Luke are thought to have been composed between 80 and 90 AD, using Mark as a source, along with a hypothetical collection of Jesus’ sayings known as the Q source. Scholars largely agree that the authors were not the apostles Matthew or Luke but Greek-speaking Christians who sought to address the needs of their communities  . 3. John, the latest gospel, was likely written near the end of the 1st century (around 90-100 AD). It has a more theological focus and differs significantly from the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Scholars generally do not believe it was written by the Apostle John, though the author may have had some connection to a Johannine community  . I believe it’s more likely these texts were composed to convey theological reflections on Jesus rather than to function as historical biographies in the modern sense.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

There is no evidence to suggest the Gospels of Luke and Matthew were originally written so late. If the Scriptures are true (and they are), then the books were likely written vaguely a decade after the sacrifice of the Lord, or maybe earlier.

[@DanielApologetics]

Paul's creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is dated by *critical* scholars to be within 1, 3 or 5 years. Not decades. (Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lundeman etc.)

[@JesusIsWithYouNowPrayToHim]

True, other Christian scholars date it to as early as 3 months after the resurrection of Christ!!

[@jeffzelm563]

Love the video, great job. I personally love these types of videos. Thx

[@bluebitproductions2836]

At 40:00, I believe you should look into "The Poor" under Jesus's brother James. This is the group Paul met with (and had some disagreements with) in his writings. It was seemingly the first movement of Christians, and was extremely Jewish in orientation. In the Hebrew Bible, characters like David are called "sons of God," so while clearly an elevated position, it's not clear that they viewed him as metaphysically above humanity the way later Christians did.

[@bellanina1271]

I agree with you, Jesus died because of the high priests.

[@nenadmilovanovic5271]

Yeah they made him out to be more of a political threat than he really was, hence the crucifiction

[@Grandwigg]

@@nenadmilovanovic5271 Yep. And the number of their own laws they broke to make the trial happen and STILL have to pivot to 'Sedition against Rome' is a fascinating study as well.

[@nenadmilovanovic5271]

@@Grandwigg I think they really wanted him gone while he was in Jerusalem, because it might be hard to find him later but they couldn't execute him themselves because it was the passover, so they urged Romans to do it for them.