Why We Cannot Reconstruct Jesus's Life - Dr. Barrie Andrew Wilson

[@carmelo1509]

It's refreshing to hear someone articulate what we DON'T know, as opposed to all the know-it-alls we hear all the time.

[@robinstevenson6690]

Very good guest! Very articulate and clear-spoken. Great teacher.

[@stimorolication9480]

This was a great interview and Dr. Wilson is so right about this. I would even argue the situation is worse than what he describes. But first, he makes a very important point about the sources. We don't know who wrote them! Or when, where or why. These are all important questions historians ask when assessing historical sources, and a big difference between "Bible scholars" and real historians. We have important historical works where we know who the author was and when they were published, whether they were by Plutarch, Josephus or Tacitus. The more we know about a source and its author the more valuable it is for historians. Knowing "The Jewish War" was written by Josephus is important, as we know he was actually there, but also that he played a part and what his sympathies were. For the gospels we have almost no information at all, only later traditions that are not reliable. I wish more scholars would be as honest and cautious as Dr. Wilson. Too many just assume and assert when in reality we don't know. In my opinion any scholar who talks about an "M" or "L" source is really just an apologist as these are just made up sources whose only purpose is to place them as early in time as possible. Because these are scholars who *need* the gospels to be eye witness accounts and contain information about a historical Jesus. But the problem for them is that we know the authors of "Matthew" and "Luke" used "Mark" as a source, which is widely agreed on by the vast majority of scholars today. Already we have a problem, because why would any eye witness need to plagiarize someone else's account of Jesus? And we know "Mark" was written after the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple. Which means it was written sometime after 70 AD. Here we have the oldest gospel already being at least 40 years after when we think Jesus died, and the rest are even older. Not only that, but "after 70 AD" doesn't mean it was written that year, it could be *any year* after 70, including 80, 90, 100, 110 etc. Yet you will almost always hear scholars claim that "Mark" was written *in* 70 AD, which there simply is no evidence for at all. This just shows the bias of these scholars who so desperately need the gospels to be as close in time as possible to keep the idea that they contain eye witness information. But there really is no evidence for when "Mark" was written. At all. So when "Matthew" and "Luke" are later than "Mark", and disagreeing with "Mark", this opens the possibility of them not even existing in the first century and only being written in the early second century. And why would we believe anything they say about Jesus if they are written almost a century later? Well, if they can't even agree on what his dying words were I would already be very suspicious, but that's just me. What the bible scholars do which in my opinion just shows their bias is to invent out of thin air sources like "Q", "M" and "L". I don't know about any other historical document where historians out of thin air have incvented "earlier sources" where none are mentioned. The purpose of this is to get earlier sources, closer to the life of Jesus. And wouldn't you know, scholars date the "Q" document they have invented to be *before* the Jewish War. Even though every single line in it is taken from gospels we know are written *after* 70 AD. The arguments for "Q" are also very weak and easy to dismantle. Like the claim the author of "Luke" didn't know "Matthew" and the author of "Matthew" didn't know "Luke". Or that "they wouldn't have", like modern scholars knew Luke personally and knows how he would have thought. It's crazy really how weak the case for "Q" is yet so many scholars cling to it. Even worse is the "M" source implying the author of "Matthew" was incapable of coming up with anything himself and everything had to come from an earlier source (that noone else in the world knew about? Come on). In essence: we don't like what the data tells us, so we change the data. Be very careful when listening to biblical scholars and beware of bullshit claims that they have no way of knowing. Anyone using "M", "L" and "Q" as "evidence" I would take with a spoon of salt because they are clearly biased and are not following honest historical methods. So to make matters even worse than what Dr. Wilson has already showed, there is really no reason to think there was a Q or any other pre-70 gospel. And there may not even have been any gospels at all written until the very end of the first century. Note how not only the letters of Paul but also other early Christian documents show no knowledge of the gospel stories. Which in my opinion makes the oral tradition theories unlikely, because how would someone like Paul not know these stories then? It doesn't make sense. After the first gospel is written it doesn't take long before there are many of them, all making some changes of their own. It seems clear to me that "Matthew" was supposed to replace "Mark", not complement it, and the same with "Luke". So if these gospel stories were unknown for at the first 40-60 years after the death of Jesus how can we think any of it is true? Can we really know anything at all about a historical Jesus? I don't think we can. In fact I don't even think there is evidence that anyone called him "Jesus of Nazareth" until this line in "Matthew" was written: "He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.”. Can we really say anything at all with any certainty about the supposed historical character of Jesus? Yet the scholars claim it is absolutely 100% without a doubt guaranteed that there at least *was* a historical Jesus. That seems to be the only thing that is certain. Or is it?

[@Jd-808]

Right, the best explanation is that they were worshipping a crucified-by-Satan Jewish teacher-angel who never existed on Earth. There couldn’t have been any stories about this angel before the gospels because we know that stories about their gods were not important to people in antiquity. They just worshipped for high-minded philosophical reasons like Paul’s. They’re is ZERO evidence of oral stories so the rational thing is to assume they did not exist until one day Mark woke up and thought “goodness me I am worshipping a deity I know literally nothing about!!! I must correct this by making up a story from thin air!!!”. I am so sick of these biased BIBLICAL scholars (lol isn’t that an oxymoron???? Am i right???)(NOT historians) who think a Jesus actually existed. An apocalyptic prophet being crucified by Rome???? Please.

[@shaunigothictv1003]

excellent analysis.

[@stuckinlodi100]

Bart is semi-cautious however at times..I think plausibly if at all.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

It's critical analysis of Mark, Matthew and Luke that suggests that not only did Matthew and Luke* copy Mark, but they didn't copy each other. The details are over my head - I don't even read Greek, but basically it's the way the texts are organized, I think. We see how each of them copies Mark, but the shared material between them is handled differently. They insert it in different places, for example. And we can see the kind of material it is - almost exclusively sayings, but rather than copying the framing the other put around a saying, Mark and Luke use different framings. That kind of thing. That strongly suggests another source they both used. A written source, since the wording is too close for it to be just oral. The M & L sources just refer to the rest of the material, which could be separate inventions by Matthew and Luke, or could be existing community traditions that they merged into their writing. Possibly even written versions, though there's no way to tell. Not something that nobody else in the world knew about, but just parts of the fracturing tradition of stories about Jesus. Mark had one set. Matthew and Luke shared another (Q), but each had some other material that the other didn't. John was later, but he had his own thing.:) As for Nazareth, it's definitely mentioned multiple times in Mark, so it's hard to argue Matthew introduced that. Much more likely that Matthew and Luke introduced the Bethlehem connection to fit prophecy, and that Jesus himself was already tied to Nazareth. *I'm using Matthew, Mark & Luke conventionally to refer to the anonymous authors of those Gospels. No implication that the traditional authorship is correct was intended.

[@johnnehrich9601]

Agree pretty much 1,000%.

[@jamesskyler1981]

Being a Christian since a young child until only recently at age 50 going to a Christian organization with an extensive library of commentaries on the old and new testament changed my belief system 100%.Watching guests like Barrie Wilson and knowing everything I've studied meticulously on this subject I only have one opinion = Jesus never intended to start a new religion and that's a fact.The reason why there are so many contradictions on his teachings is because the individual writer was lying about what Jesus taught instead promoting their own political agenda.

[@richman8082]

Exactly. The Jewish christians were the only true christians. You have to follow the law and they didn't believe that Jesus died for their sins. They didn't believe he was God. They kept the sabbath etc.

[@jamesskyler1981]

@@richman8082 It's astonishing how when I've tried to show fellow friends who are Christian they are very intelligent folks in every other aspect of their lives yet are brainwashed and won't accept the truth.After approaching a few of them I now know why , they're terrified of going to hell and the mere thought all their dead Christian relative's and friends believed a lie wasting decades of energy on a fairy tale.

[@bigboy9983]

You got it!😊

[@hippopotamus6765]

What about "The Jesus" never existed. Just like all the other deities. I've been trying to find him for 60 yrs. Every road leads to a dead end.

[@geraldmeehan8942]

His brother James tried to keep original teachings alive in Jerusalem. James's version was eclipsed by Paul's version and the rest is history

[@kellyproteacher9970]

I love the honesty on display here... Fantastic!

[@SPQR748]

I think that the reason that we can’t nail down a coherent biography of Jesus is because the authors of the scriptures planned it that way. They send us down trails that are a dead end and present narratives that are contradictory. For example we are told in one gospel that the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would birth the Messiah but in another gospel she and Jesus’s brothers declared that he is insane. How does one get from the Annunciation by Gabriel to declaring YOUR Messiah insane?

[@alanmurray5963]

Would love to see apologists squirm there way out of the great points u made.....

[@willempasterkamp862]

@@alanmurray5963 dive into the relationship between the blessed Lady ; Agrippina minor and her son ; Nerones chrestos.

[@Matira269]

To the point about disagreement among gospel writers and Mary's reaction to Jesus. Observe that in Mark's gospel there is no annunciation and nativity story, and therefore Mary could come to whatever conclusion seemed plausible to her, about her son's behavior, and mission; on the other hand in Matthew's and Luke's versions of events, she had been told his identity and mission by an angel, and therefore would not have come to the conclusion that he was a madman.

[@Matira269]

​@@alanmurray5963Apologist don't have to make sense, they just have to say something, anything!

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

How ?... fiction

[@exoplanet11]

Very enlightening presentation, if not a dramatic one.. Thanks for interviewing Dr. Wilson. I feel like perhaps this interview could be preceded by the statement: "We..... are...... not Mythvision!"

[@jeanboshears6689]

Never heard of the expression myth vision

[@hermanhale9258]

Albert Schweitzer laid this out over one hundred years ago. We only have religious documents, written by religious people. They did not write historical accounts. It's a religion. It all came out fine.

[@winstonshipman8734]

I just read Schweitzer as an old man. I wish I would have read him first . What is there really to say after him ? And his thoughts on Paul as well , as being just "a mystic " are correct also. When Paul says "In Jesus " we are saved. He actually means "Inside Jesus " ; literally .

[@fgcbrooklyn]

So clear, so efficient, so precise and with great arguments. I loved the structure of the presentation, the way he sets up the issue and works around it, layer after layer, pealing it like an onion. Great rhetorical skills. I am jealous.

[@gphilipvirgil355]

Excellent presentation. Thank you again.

[@goddessproject]

Excellent episode! Dr. Wilson is one of the most informative and easy to listen to people I've heard in a long time.

[@ObjectiveEthics]

I recently listened to a lecture in which breaks down the historical life of Jesus. There was a very good argument that Jesus was never crucified. I had always accepted the historical birth and crucifixion as being viable but after stepping back from the situation and looking at it more critically I admit that the crucifixion narrative is highly non-historical. When you actually read the writing of those who knew of Pilate you will see that the entire narratives from the gospel accounts are completely implausible. When you add this to the fact that the gospel accounts are not eye witnesses and all contradict each other it adds to the implausibility. When you break down the multiple narratives you find out that you do not meet the criteria of either multiple attestation nor of embarrassment. In fact there isn't any solid reason to believe that it actually happened from a historical point of view. I still think (although I am not 100% convinced) that there was a historical Jesus. But I am equally convinced that he was not crucified by the Romans.

[@adamad1958]

Thanks!

[@xifangyangren9997]

Now, that was some brutal honesty. And I like it. A little bit of humble pie, reminds us that it’s wrong to lie

[@JackRT3]

I like this guy. He's very understated but he doesn't pretend to know things that cannot be known, like Tabor or Ehrman. Refreshing.

[@guenthermichaels5303]

Very informative. I read Barrie Wilson's book years ago. The final conclusion of the book was, that if you followed the teachings of Yeshua, you would be a Jew, not a Christian. I referred it to many Christians, none of which had enough of an open mind to read it.

[@Scorned405]

If they don’t know the authors of the New Testament than how can they date when they were written??

[@edwardmiessner6502]

This guy gets it! Basically his thesis is that Paul stole the historical Jesus's identity and used it to create a mythical Jesus, a celestial one (except when he says Jesus materialized on Earth in some places and was born a Jew of the line of David in others). Then the gospel writers euhemerised this Jesus who never existed with 4 canonical and multiple other stories that all contradict each other.

[@carlomariaromano4320]

Stop fantasizing. This guy got nothing aside from making stuff up and run with it.

[@BlackstoneGod]

I don't think those are Paul's motivations. For Paul to have re-invented Jesus as a celestial deity that would mean Peter and James never thought Jesus rose from the dead. Wouldn't it be more logical to suggest that if Paul (our first author) saw Jesus as a celestial deity then those before him also saw him the same way?

[@BlackstoneGod]

@@annascott3542 For the purposes of the argument I'll assume that the letters of James and Peter are pseudepigrapha, though I find it highly dubious that Paul switched from being a Pharisee based on leaders (Paul calls them both pillars) who were illiterate fisherman; that aside however, despite being at loggerheads with the pillars, nowhere does Paul ever combat the idea in his letters that they thought Jesus never rose from the dead or that they didn't follow the Jesus deity and that likely would have been a point of contention; the only issues seem to be disagreements on whether to follow Torah law, be circumcised, etc.

[@richardbluett958]

@@BlackstoneGod The gospels were written way after Paul, so it was easy to come up with the resurrection story, there is no evidence outside the gospels,.. and Paul, so the Roman church wrote whatever they wanted.

[@BlackstoneGod]

@@richardbluett958 Yes the gospels are after Paul but Paul already believed in a risen Christ - 1 Cor 15:3-4 - "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures...". Exactly what that resurrection consisted of and how much truth (if any) the later gospels represent of that death and / or resurrection is a hot topic within New Testament studies.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Any Book of Enoch fans out there should really try reading the Samaritan Book of Joshua. Wayyy different than the Masoretic Text Book of Joshua. Reads far more similar to Book of Enoch with King Joshua fighting giants and stuff.

[@Nkosi766]

They constructed Jesus out of the Old Testament, and all other writings, even homer .

[@lunarmodule6419]

Not "even Homer". With of course Homer in mind. These guys are greek writers :-)

[@Nkosi766]

@@lunarmodule6419 even Confucius can be found in Jesus

[@lunarmodule6419]

@@Nkosi766 Oh never heard this one...

[@Nkosi766]

@@lunarmodule6419 , I don’t believe Christianity came out of Palestine, it was brought to Palestine by Helena. The Holy land was built for her, by her warlord son . They renamed the landscape to fit the NT. Nazareth was founded by Helena. The Sea of Galilee was Lake Tiberius. It’s not a damn sea.

[@Nkosi766]

@@lunarmodule6419 . Moses parted the water, Jesus walked on it

[@JohnHarnick]

Im still confused on Paul's input. He mentions christ/jesus 300 times but never in human terms. More a spirit. So how can he deduce that Jesus was 'born'?

[@antonius3745]

Very good discussion

[@Matira269]

I have always wonderered,why, if salvation of humanity rides on belief in Jesus, the evidence would be so thin.

[@chrisstathe9183]

God chooses who to save and he will save all he elected to save.

[@Matira269]

@@chrisstathe9183 So those not predestined for salvation were also chosen by default, as fodder for the flame, and therefore there was never any need to give evidence of the truth?

[@chrisstathe9183]

@@Matira269 God chose not to redeem them and they will answer for their sins and die but they will just have their thoughts parish and this condition is eternal.They will not suffer for eternity.

[@DrewClark-ov5up]

@@chrisstathe9183So God creates disposable people?

[@lunarmodule6419]

To me everything is shaky since everything come from gospel that are "stories". We can't assume anything. He may even never existed for all we know. The premises are all faulty from the beginning. But we have letters from Paul and a sect in Judea.

[@schneebauerkarl]

Sehr gut very good,

[@Dybbouk]

Geza Vermes argued that the Aramaic bits in the Gospels were authentic Jesus-sayings. But according to Vinzent, Bilby and Bull even that is out the window

[@questioneverything1682]

There was this guy in Palestine when the Roman Empire ruled it. He hung out with illiterate people, said things, did things, inspired some people. He died. Some literate people began writing about him in a style of story-telling common at the time, using spiritual beliefs and constructs common at the time. Versions of this process continued for a couple thousand years. Thus, we indeed cannot reconstruct "Jesus" life.

[@richman8082]

Great that i rejected Christianity

[@BlackstoneGod]

Good interview - a sober review of the evidence and how it demonstrates that nothing can be said with any real certainty about Jesus' life (except that he was killed).

[@edgarsnake2857]

That was excellent. Dr. Wilson was serving up facts. Jacob asked a pile of good questions. And, for me, the conclusion is always the same: The only 'testament' should be a testament to human imagination. The giant ball of wax that is religion is always based on some pretty flimsy stuff.

[@winstonshipman8734]

Dr. Wilson is very correct . And add to this , even if we knew exactly what Jesus said , we do not know if he thinks it applies to gentiles. The Jewish law "Very specifically says" a gentile cannot be punished for not following the Jewish Law . Even if we knew Jesus' exact view of the Jewish religion it does not at all prove he thought gentiles are bound by it. One important exception to the confusion though I see , if we read Paul's letters and the writings of the early church who knew him personally "Nobody " says "God is love" which somebody would have said if that was the "total message " that Jesus' conveyed. So a great deal of modern Christian theology cannot be what he taught,

[@edluckenbill9382]

Interesting

[@jonathanhorton4607]

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could find a source for his missing years.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

there are clues. See my recent comment.

[@almazchati4178]

This was the most devastating opinion I came across about the reliability of the Christian scriptures. It looks like they were compiled by various local and unknown authors associated with Paul's church which was evolving.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

It is just an opinion, and not a very good one, either.

[@almazchati4178]

@@jeffreyerwin3665What you are saying is subjective. Anyway, there was Jewish war shortly after, and except Pharisees, all Jews were sold into slavery, if not killed. This was known to early Christians. Josephus mentions that James, the brother of Christ, was condemned to death by the 'high priest' for breaking the law. That must be the Roman law. The consensus is these statements are later additions, by pauline Christians, blaming the Jewish high priest for the deaths of Jesus and his disciples. Probably there were not many disciples left alive to tell what happened after 60CE. Gospels are pauline folklore.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

The Gospels are silent about the years of Jesus' life from late childhood until his ministry at about age 33. However, there are some clues. The Gospels say that Jesus went outside of Israel to Sidon and there entered a home without being invited. It seems that he must have been familiar with that place. In Germany there is a gravestone of a first century Roman solder named Tiberious Julius Abdes Pantera from Sidon. Abdes is a Latinization of "Ebed" which is a Jewish name. Tradition holds that Joseph was much older than Mary, perhaps by as much as thirty years. The Gospels mention that the priests defended themselves by saying that they were not sons of fornication (implying that Jesus was such.) Jesus was known in the first century as "Yeshu ben Pantera," i.e. the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera. Here is a hypothetical scenario. A young Jew by the name of Ebed lived with his parents in Sidon, but they had no income and were in danger of losing their home. Ebed was an archer, so, to save his parents from eviction, he enisted in a Roman archery battalion. Ebed had a soul-mate relationship with a young Jewish woman named Miriam, but her parents would not allow her to wed someone who had betrayed Judaism by enlisting in the Roman army. When Miriam turned up in a family way, her parents assumed the worst and pawned her off to a widowed carpenter. Joseph died shortly after Jesus' boyhood visit to Jerusalem. Miriam had no one left to support her family in Galilee, so she moved to Ebed's home in Sidon. There Jesus grew into adulthood. That is why the Gospels are so strangely silent about twenty years of Jesus' life. They do not want to lend any credence to the idea that Jesus might have been conceived out ot wedlock.

[@suelingsusu1339]

We have as much facts to reconstruct "historical" Jesus as for Athena... in fact I think more for Athena... I wonder if she was a deified historical virago?

[@lunarmodule6419]

Exactly. But we are so brainwashed with the gospels. They are "stories". We always this distorted view. Nothing in the gospels can be grounds for anything.

[@willempasterkamp862]

We have well attested historical records of Nerones Chrestos behavior (Suetonius and others). The gospels are ' historical ' accounts in a parable, parallel custom portraying the same main role-player ; Nero princeps .

[@winstonbarquez9538]

Paul's concept of the Kingdom of God is found in Romans 14:17

[@glennshrom5801]

Just looking at the title so far. Figuring that the title refers to Jesus' life on earth so far, I'll just chime in that the past life is not such a big deal to reconstruct when we have the coming life on earth of Jesus to look forward to, when we get to live out our lives with him in real time, not just study the past.

[@terencewinters2154]

Reconstructing anyone's life is near impossible . Whether he intended Christianity is the biggest question . But better directed at reconstructing Paul's life who never met Jesus.

[@Mikeatthenet]

Well, tbh reconstructing the life of anyone of us living today is tricky. Your own adult life you have some scattered memories of, but ofthen mixed up, and most episodes forgotten. Your childhood is depending on your parents memories, and they only knows the part when they were present, a lot of times they were not, and when your parents are gone most of that info is gone. How much of your own sayings can you remember accurately? When you read your daily news from two different media they are mostly different if they did not quote each other or both quoted ”Reuters”. TBH it is more convincing that sources differ than when they are mostly ”copy paste” idrntical.

[@MikePhilbin1966]

Wasn't Edessa in West Syria (where 'Jesus' royal family lived) actually called THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN?

[@mirozkapeluszem]

Tu jest dużo kluczowych elementów i pytań, które są przemilczane na lekcji religii.

[@agnieszkakowalska7564]

Określona interpretacja tych opowieści legitymizuje cały gmach prawa kanonicznego, wywody teologiczne, ogromne, zasiedziałe instytucje z ich przywilejami, tradycje i przekonania milionów wiernych.

[@kaarlimakela3413]

These authors weren't trying to be historically accurate. There was no such thing at the time.

[@Nkosi766]

Paul is Proculus Julius and Jesus is Ramulus

[@Nkosi766]

Jesus is everything, all the gods in the pagan world rolled in one, he’s greater David, greater Moses, the sun, El Elyon, Dionysius the wine god, he’s every god, in order for Rome to convert the pagans, he had to be everything the pagans knew

[@edwardmiessner6502]

@@Nkosi766 plus Julius and Augustus Caesar who were also gods by Roman Senatorial decree.

[@Nkosi766]

@@edwardmiessner6502 it’s the imperial cult, starting probably by Horus

[@willempasterkamp862]

If Proculus Julius is the same guy as Germanicus . . . a progenius from J. C. not from the bloodline but by adoption; the appointed heir of Tiberius. His grandson Nerones is then a new Romulus or Jesus.

[@Nkosi766]

@@willempasterkamp862 . Jesus is everything. I don’t understand the germanius reference, did he proclaim to meet and talk with Julius after his death?

[@jupitermoongauge4055]

Wonderful interview. It's kind of hilarious to think of the endless individuals praying into the void and wasting their lives devoted to a pack of lies. Kind of hilarious and at the same time very sad

[@13treva]

Lots of reasons here why we can't reconstruct Jesus life .... But I'd say most scholars would say there are many events and teachings that are quite likely historical, thereby allowing us to reconstruct quite a lot of Jesus life with some degree of confidence. Yes it's problematic and challenging but the first 38 minutes of this video suggest it's a lost cause and I don't think that's the case.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

right. There are clues, but the hypothesis that fits them is contrary to Christian theology, so it has been ignored. See my Recent post.

[@glennshrom5801]

I've watched some more of this since yesterday. It pains me that so many Gentile Christians think Jesus accomplished all of his Messianic mission at his first coming. It is obvious from the Bible that there is a lot more prophecy that awaits fulfillment when the Messiah comes in the future. It will be this same Messiah Jesus, but the things he will do will be far different from the things he did at his first coming. Many of the Jewish expectations of the Second Temple period were accurate, because they are based on God's Word through the prophets. Jesus himself echoed those words, and Jesus himself let people know that it would be a long time between his first coming and the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. Other Jewish expectations of the Messiah from the Second Temple period were selfish and/or hateful misreads of the prophetic words, and those never will come to pass. Jesus worked hard to set straight that he had come for the salvation of the Gentiles as well, and that was not well received. The Apostle Paul caught on to this, and knew by the end of his life which expectations of Jesus were godly - be they of past fulfillment or future fulfillment - and which ones actually were a betrayal of God's purposes for the world.

[@jeanboshears6689]

Luke said he thoroughly investigated before he wrote his gospel. If he did that his family would have told him where Christ was for those missing 18 years Luke evidently decided not to include that Jesus was in India, a good part of that time. There are about five Mather current books written in regard to that.

[@chrisstathe9183]

Luke did not write what he wanted but what GOD moved him to write.

[@larryprimeau5885]

John the Baptist in no way was the "cousin" of Jesus, just as Jesus wasn't born jn Bethlehem, and that he never taught in a synagogue in Jerusalem when he was 12. It's possible that Jesus was educated by followers/students of Hillel the Elder, who educated students by using tbe parables of Hillel. It's likely that Jesus learned from school of Hillel

[@willempasterkamp862]

Nerones Princeps Chrestus in aeternum As long as you fail to understand how Neron is a ' Jew ' AND ' Chrestos' you will stay puzzled about it at all.

[@petermetcalfe6722]

Whether Dr Wilson intended to or not he appears to be supporting the Jesus mythicism theory.

[@lunarmodule6419]

I would say more along Bart Ehrman thesis...

[@edwardmiessner6502]

@@lunarmodule6419 when he does go along Bart Ehrman's thesis it's to immunize himself from being called a mythicist "crank" and have his own hypothesis "discredited". Because an historical Jesus whose identity got stolen and used to create a Jesus of _mythos_ by Paul and then euhemerised by the gospel writers is for all intents and purposes no different from a Jesus who never existed!

[@lunarmodule6419]

@@edwardmiessner6502 So true! Stolen Jesus. That said I'm sure Ehrman positions must rub a lot of people. Like when he says Jesus' body was probably dumped in a common grave. Outch!

[@petermetcalfe6722]

@@edwardmiessner6502 I agree.

[@Theslavedrivers]

@@edwardmiessner6502 There is still a distinction though (albeit a fine one!) in the 'stolen identity' approach - in that it opens up questions on what JC's actual family/ friends/ followers were like - what they believed and hoped for, etc ...

[@betadecay6503]

We can't be sure of Jesus' teachings because the accounts we have are conflicting, yet we can be sure of his birth in spite of conflicting genealogies, birth narratives, birthplaces, and a complete lack of testimony from any person to ever meet the living Jesus. I know people despise mythiscism but please explain this logic for a simpleton like me.

[@Jd-808]

Google basic historical methodology

[@betadecay6503]

@@Jd-808 first you reread what I wrote. Then try being a less patronising dick while making an irrelevant point

[@termination9353]

The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them. "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true." John 11:5 Now Jesus LOVED Martha, and her sister, and LAZARUS John 11:3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him{Jesus], saying, Lord, behold, HE[Lazarus] WHOM THOU LOVEST is sick.. John11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he[Jesus] LOVED him[Lazarus]!

[@termination9353]

After age of 12 Jesus was sent to the Qumran monastery where he was an Essene monk till he decided to come out as 'branch of David'.

[@willempasterkamp862]

@@termination9353 It was far more his mentor Ananus who pushed him in this role and applied to him as the messiah, the adopt-son of the living god ; Claudius Divius. but it is correct that he on a youg age was teached in stoic philosophy, he made is first speech in senate aged 16 according historical sources.

[@termination9353]

@@willempasterkamp862 I’d have to say no to all of that. The priesthood in Jesus time were imposters according to the Gospel account. After the Apostles with Lazarus published the Gospel their next actions was to send the brethren out and away from Jerusalem then provoking the Jerusalem zealots into violence against Roman occupation with the deliberate intent that Rome retaliate and destroy the Temple abomination.

[@termination9353]

@@willempasterkamp862 “Historical sources” ?! What part of my comment accusing your “historical sources” of fraud plagiarism deceit did you not understand?

[@willempasterkamp862]

@@termination9353 I do understand your comments but see no consisitence, None .

[@carminefragione4710]

The Temple Priests sent Scribes to follow Jesus around for three years and test his teaching and make reports for the Sanhedrin upon the fact Jesus was put on trial. That is why such intimate details are reported in the Gospels, that can only exist because the High Priest tailed Jesus around, like the FBI or the CIA would spy on persons of critical political controversy. Jesus was born in Zion , circumcised by the Temple Priests given the Korbanot of Temple Services ,Jesus grew in Wisdom and Spirit according the Sons of Zadok who awared Jesus the license to be able to enter the Temple as a Priest lawfully able to teach Oral Law Tradition on Holy Ground to Jews. which could only be forfeited by a TRIAL by the High Priest and the Sanhedrin, for which reason History was made by Jesus , because the Scribes had to report their investigations about Jesus and his Disiciples, to the Jewish Authority. To deny the history is total nonsense.

[@willempasterkamp862]

Now apply this to Nerones Chrestos from Arimathea (high descence) son of Claudius Divius ( Joseph Tekton ) teached at young age by his mentor Seneca (Ananus) in stoic philosophy and wisdom, attested by his uncles Drusus JC (Andronicus) and Nero JC ( Junias, the other 'Joses' ) the two sons of Zebedee ( Zadok, Hillel ). Zadok ( the blessed Zachery ) himself teached by Gamaliel ( Simon of Gamla) aka Jair (Aaron, the mountain or rock ), hmm.

[@seaman5705]

Because Jesus didn't exist as described in the bible/gospels . Those are just religious propaganda meant to put the bases of the religion . Jesus, if he existed historically , has not performed miracles or was of divine origin . And without these "qualities" there is no base for a religion .

[@termination9353]

"According to conventional dating" FRAUD RUMOR

[@abdar-rahman6965]

Jesus was married and had son Elikim. Acts of Thomas (Act Thomae) shows that long after failed Crucifixion, Jesus was present in Taxila Pakistan where he and Thomas attended Marriage Party of daughter of King of Taxila. In Taxila Museum we also see statue of Jesus and his son Elikim standing with Jesus

[@willempasterkamp862]

That may very well be father Zekery (Helios/ Elias/ Hillel, Heli, Exlai, Elymas) and his son Junias (Jochanan ben Zakkai the 'dipper') aka Pantera/ Kamtza (father) and Ben pandera/ Ben kamtza (son). respectively the grandad and uncle of our Jesus (ben Ananus) named after his mentor ' Kefas ' Simeon Ananias nicknamed Albinus . Actually Zechery had two sons, the name of the other twin-son being Shammai or (Jacov/andronicus/Stefano). The brothers were know as kamtzim (locusts) because they were 'scattered' (latin :pandere) send in exile (spread out lke grass-hoppers). Thomas (Didymus) is an other naming for the Twin (Gemini) . Where shamash and Eli are names for the Sun (deity), so can Elikim very well be the same as Shammai (Silas ; little Saul, James the Lesser) were as other traditions have it that James the Just, the morer, Saul/Paul) travelled west-wards to spain ending up as Santiago (patronage of spain) and John (barnabbas, philippus) travelled north and became the patron (st. George) of england.

[@abdar-rahman6965]

@@willempasterkamp862 Have you read Acts of Thomas (Acta Thomae)? Clearly, he was Jesus with Thomas in Taxila (Pakistan) long after the incidence of Cross

[@willempasterkamp862]

@@abdar-rahman6965 If there are 3 persons in the statue or painting then it are Jesus, Joses and Joses father. Jesus and Joses (the other Jesus) are often mixed up with one another. And as I understand it, it were only 2 'nazarites' . Jesus wasn't there.

[@abdar-rahman6965]

@@willempasterkamp862 You are trying to escape from the facts and you are denying even 1+1=2. So, continue to live in your fictitious garden. No problem

[@willempasterkamp862]

@@abdar-rahman6965 a father with 2 sons ,a warrior with a 2 horned helmet, or one 'dragon' with 2 horns is a 'triune' thing. I'm not talking 'trinity' here. dhul Qarnain's horns are malik + sadiq , majui + jajui , Magog + Gog, a magician and a juggler not monsters to be afraid of. dhul Qarnain = Cornelius in the bible. They compare with; EL-oh (allah) Mercury Gabriel messenger Hermes treasure-bearer gold malik Mars Michael warrior Apollos weapon-bearer mirrh sadiq Venus Samael priest Pan light-bearer incense There are in total 8 dwelling lights up in the sky what the ancients named the lesser gods, the tiny-people, the essenes, the essentials from the basics (beginning, creation) aka the ebionites (the poor) because they give poor light. They are watchers and wittnesses. who match up with precious stones, arch-angels and even with some colors. The 'Huqoq elephant mosaic' ( here on YT ) gives a nice picture of the ebionites and the 'people of Ad' a story what is also in the quran, very interesting stuff you be warned, now I'm very curious what is your opinion on this historical scene .

[@jamesbarlow6423]

"Jesus" readily became a plaything of historical imagination because he was the first the creation of the religious imagination.

[@uncledan2u]

A better and appropriate example of a historical figure would be the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him instead of Clinton when you are trying to compare with Jesus. Both are prophets and both are given a book by God. Jesus (pbuh) was given The Injeel, Muhammad (pbuh) The Qur'an. Please do some research and reading of how the Prophet (pbuh) lived and interected with the people around him. Very interesting and rewarding.

[@jeanboshears6689]

We must consider, though that Mark and Matthew were disciples who walked along with Jesus, so they didn’t need to source out information

[@siriusgodstar]

My goodness Dr Wilson, I think you're beguiled.

[@MrCyclist]

There is nothing to know. It is all historical fiction made up by the Gospel writers. So simple.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Of course. And those writers also took a bloody crucified corpse and somehow persuaded it to record its images on a long linen cloth. Thatr explains everything! (LOL)

[@claesvanoldenphatt9972]

Historical materialist description of Jesus accomplishes nothing. Pretending the vast corpus of extant Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc. library on the subject of the God of Israel is of no interest is quixotic.

[@crimony3054]

No one has presented any evidence greater than the Gospels themselves. If you want to know about Jesus's life, read the Gospels. They are the best evidence.

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

One of the most logical and unemotinal analysis of the jesus fiction I have seen and heard... and i have ssen and heard plenty.... congrats and kudos for both knowing the subject and communicting the issues so succinctly.... a serious non-believer in the whole bible story....I never focus on jesus... back to the beginning... Genesis is fiction... moses, noah and the like didnt exist.... therefore NO adam and eve, therefore NO original sin , therefore NO need for a jesus and redemption. a la scapegoating which was a barbaric ignorant ritual.... QED

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

excuse the typos... poor eyesight

[@kennethw.ratcliff250]

The reason we can't reconstruct Jesus' life is because Jesus never existed during Romes' occupation of Palestine. The Gospels are the work of Calpernius Peso, aka Flavius Josephus.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Of course. Peso also put the blood and images of a crucified corpse on a long linen sheet and called it a burial shroud in order to support his story. (LOL!)

[@Sportliveonline]

just another opinion

[@krzysztofciuba271]

An "amazing" scholar who has never learned that the whole Bible, including the New Testament, is not a textbook of history and he does not know for sure that even any textbook of any history is already an interpretation of data: archeological, scriptural, now also the results of radioactive testing! 18:09- he questioned the death of Jesus and the reason for it (but Mk 15:26 the first written title for Jesus "the King of Jews" - also in all other Gospels) was never used by Christians; why there? 29:19- if Mark relied on Paul why Mark's Jesus is weak that failed to cure a blind man and called his disciples idiots -that is never found in other gospels. What a Ph.D. fool who does not know the work of other scholars in the field.

[@willempasterkamp862]

duh ?

[@cliveadams7629]

I guess because there was no Jesus, not the biblical Jesus for sure.

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

Yeah, and there are no images of a crucified corpse on a linen sheet, either! (LOL!)

[@cliveadams7629]

@@jeffreyerwin3665 What, that medieval creation dated around the late 13th century? Is that the one you mean, kept in the Vatican? What about it?

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

@@cliveadams7629 Sir, art history proves that the Shroud was extant in the sixth century. FYI: The Shroud is kept in Turin (that is why it is called the Shroud of Turin, duh!) The Vatican is in Rome. LOL !

[@cliveadams7629]

@@jeffreyerwin3665 Ooops, my bad. Yep, it's in Turin but first appeared in about 1350, not 600. Evidence please. No? Not surprised.

[@Aye-Aye136]

Wilson is a very poor historian.

[@JCMcGee]

Lol... He is a myth...

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

LOL yourself. The bloody images of a crucified corpse on a long linen sheet are not a "myth."

[@Nkosi766]

The kingdom of god was David throne, a son of David to rule on David’s throne, is the kingdom of god. Israel gods ppl, Palestine the land of god, David kingdom is the kingdom of god. Period full stop.