Thank you for sharing this detailed history.

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the support !

This was very good. Thanks for taking the time to upload 🤝🏽

Great video! It was very helpful in understanding more of Tacitus and his view on Christianity.

@AtamMardes

6 ай бұрын

Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries.

Comment any feedback!

Very good, it’s heavy material, so I appreciate your research! ❤

Thank you my friend.

It sounds plausible. Great video!

Where does he write that JESUS EXISTED? IT WASNT THERE FOR ME. GIVE THE TIMESTAMP 00:00

@EricRedekop

Ай бұрын

Yeah. This loser uses the term "historical" to describe Jesus, as if it were a fact and not a toxic, fraudulent myth.

This is insane. I'm still skeptical a bit. But I hear most scholoras agree that Jesus indeed existed.

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Ya , majority of scholars believe Jesus existed almost without a doubt

@Thedisciplemike

Жыл бұрын

No figure is attested to more than Jesus of Nazareth

@mochiebellina8190

9 ай бұрын

Why skeptical?

@wantedsavage7776

9 ай бұрын

For me to really belive without any doubt. Whatever the material is. I need to look at the material itself and come to my own conclusions. Especially when the materail involves things that happend long time ago. Or Material involves rigorous siencetific reasoning and proof. When lots of factors are at play when determining something is true. You kind of have to see for yourself if each factor initself holds water. Well thats how I see it.

@xavierrengade887

8 ай бұрын

@wantedsavage7776 you're absolutely right! and keep doing your OWN research, you will find exactly what you're looking for 🌟

Also important to point out the distinction made between Jesus and his followers and the christians ( many times called a mockery of Jesus)

For the algorithm :)

for the algorithm!

NICE ONE ! THANKS ! FROM. U.K. (2024).

REALLY GOOD JOB YOUNG MAN/

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

thank you very much sir !🙏

For one think he did not use the word jesus lmbo

😊😊

"This is important evidence..." What is? That a historian talked about Christians, and explained why they're called that? It isn't disputed by anyone that Christians existed in 115 A.D.

Good video - something like the Roman way to say his name is ta - KI - tus: hard "c", not "c" sounding like "sh"

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a prominent Roman historian and politician who rose through the political ranks to become Proconsul of Asia. As such he would have never got the title of Pontius Pilate wrong any more than Winston Churchill, also a historian and politician would have described David Lloyd George as being the President of the United Kingdom at the beginning of the “Great War”. Most of what is known about Tacitus comes from his lengthy correspondences with his friend the governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, who I will mention in his own segment should one become necessary. The “Tacitus” quote and its description of the persecution of Christians, using them as novelty streetlighting contradicts “Acts of the Apostles” which shows that by the time of Nero’s reign Christians were free to worship openly as long as they “rendered unto Caesar” The thread that runs through “Acts” is of Jewish persecution of Christians and Roman punishment of Jews for their treatment of Christians, as well as the edict of Claudius issued in AD41, and that certainly accords with Roman policies on religion and religious tolerance before Constantine’s day. The “Tacitus entry correctly identifies the fire of Rome as a flashpoint (pun not intended) of resentment, but it was not resentment of “Chrestians” but rather of the revolting Jews (Jewish Revolt AD64-AD70) and since the Christians had pivoted away from Judaism they were not looked on with the suspicion that fell on the Jews in Rome as a consequence of the Jewish revolt. In fact many Christians were recruited from among the Gentile (Pagan) populations of the first century Roman empire. It also runs counter to the letter from Pliny the younger to Trajan. As a person living in Nero’s Rome the young Pliny the younger would ave had definite memories of Nero’s novelty streetlamps. At best, if authentic, “Tacitus” would only demonstrate the *existence* of Christians, not the accuracy of their claims or beliefs. Like the Testimonium Flavianum, the “Tacitus” entry was unknown to Origen in AD248, and it was also unknown to Eusebius, the author of the Testimonium Flavianum. Other Christians who made absolutely no reference to Tacitus include Marcion, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irnaeus, Polycrates, Tertullian Hippolytus, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and Augustine of Hippo. All of those Christian apologists were desperate to find non-biblical sources demonstrating at the very least the existence of Jesus, and Eusebius had expressed his willingness to lie and fabricate “evidence” yet nobody knew of that supposed entry in Annals 15.44 before it was first referenced in the 14th century

@AtamMardes

6 ай бұрын

Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries.

Good video

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

appreciate the support , God bless 🙏

I've read the Greek and Roman historians. Tacitus is deepest of the Romans, Thucydides of the Greeks. historians have debate why Rome fell while ignoring the fact that Tacitus answered the question even before Rome fell, that the Empire had been conquered by the competitive virtue of the Roman aristocracy and upstarts during the Republic, while, once the emperors ruled, they we both fearful and jealous of successful generals.

@AtamMardes

6 ай бұрын

Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries.

yes, that Jesus existed is an important admission

His existence is not the issue for me, that's a given. It's whether he rose from the dead or not. That is where the doubts are. The scriptures clearly say he did, but it really comes down to faith at the end of the day. Do you have faith?????

@AtamMardes

6 ай бұрын

Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries.

@mchevalier-seawell4438

28 күн бұрын

@CatETru. If you doubt the authenticity of Jesus, the Savior, ask Him. He is alive and still interacts with people. You don’t need second hand opinions. Go to the source.

I have always been fascinated that in 49 AD , the Emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome due to riots over Chrestus

@AtamMardes

6 ай бұрын

Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries.

@wurzelbert84wucher5

2 ай бұрын

@@AtamMardes You, Sir, are obsessed. Atheist are the worst of them all, you won't recognize Jesus as your Lord even if he came to you in person one night, to convince you.

It is a mistake to equate the Latin "superstitio" with the English "superstitious".

So Tacitus reads the gospels after the fires of Rome and adds Christians and Jesus to his records and this proves......

There is serious doubt that Tacitus wrote the passage. The passage is not quoted by anyone until the year 900CE.That means all the early Christian apologists, Origen, Tertullian, Iraneus, Eusebius and all the others are not aware of it. "Chrestus" does not mean Christ in Latin. Chrestus means, "the good" in Greek. There is no evidence, except this passage, that Nero blamed the Christians for the fire. None of the Historians in Rome at the time even mentions Christians. You are a lousy historian.

@SanctusApologetics

Жыл бұрын

I never claimed to be a historian, im simply repeat what the majority of historians agree upon, and the majority agree Tacitus wrote that passage , if it was written by christian’s , they would’ve said good things about Christianity , but Tacitus infact attacks the belief and believes it’s immoral …

@ryanl2576

Жыл бұрын

Yeah because there was another one that "incited a sedition among the Jews at Rome" with nearly the exact same name as Christ at the exact same time. Confirming bias doesn't mean we disregard common sense!

@wrobinnes

Жыл бұрын

Early Christian apologists didn’t feel the need to prove a historical Jesus existed because there wasn’t much skepticism about his existence at the time. They writings of Tacitus probably weren’t very important to them.

@bartbannister394

Жыл бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics Only Christian historians buy that. Considering that Christian authorities have been caught lying and fabricating evidence for centuries, there is good reason to believe Tacitus never wrote the passage. As no one mentions it till the year 900CE. The passage attributed to Tacitus was supposedly written in 118CE. But in 64CE, the historians who were eyewitnesses to the fire say absolutely nothing about Christians. Seneca, Pliny and Cassius Dio were all there in Rome in 64CE.

@bartbannister394

Жыл бұрын

@@wrobinnes Not true. Origen, 2nd century CE bishop of Alexandria, wrote a whole book, "Contra Celsus" arguing for the historicity of Jesus. Eusebius, 3rd century CE bishop of Rome also. They were the two most authoritive Christians in their era. Neither mention Tacitus' passage.

Early writers fabricated the resurrection hoax by making up fake testimonials that the disciples & others have witnessed an empty tomb & a risen Jesus.

@rqche6689

9 ай бұрын

That would be a lot of work for no reward, why would somebody do that

@Jin-dc7gl

7 ай бұрын

Why would all the apostles except John suffer martyrdom for a hoax? What is your evidence for your claim of fabrication? Do you have any eye witnesses?

@AtamMardes

6 ай бұрын

@@Jin-dc7gl Followers of Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite & David Koresh gave up everything including their lives. Does that mean what they believed must be true???

@AtamMardes

6 ай бұрын

@@rqche6689 The sin-sacrifice-resurrection story implies a superstitious God who values blood-sacrifice. Obviously the superstitious early folks, who valued blood sacrifice, created the God of the Bible in their own image.

@AtamMardes

6 ай бұрын

@@rqche6689 Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries.

Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries.

@wesleynunez3825

3 ай бұрын

I just wanted to say that your profile pic made me laugh ;) How do you know they are forgeries?

@AtamMardes

2 ай бұрын

@@wesleynunez3825 The same way I know early writers fabricated the resurrection hoax by making up fake testimonials that the disciples & others have witnessed an empty tomb & a risen Jesus.

@wesleynunez3825

2 ай бұрын

@@AtamMardes How are you certain that they were making up fake testimonials? Also, what is the animal in your profile pic?

@AtamMardes

2 ай бұрын

@@wesleynunez3825 The same way I know Josephus, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Eusebius stories about Jesus are Christian forgeries. Philippines eagle.

@wesleynunez3825

2 ай бұрын

@@AtamMardes That bird looks like a thinker. I like birds in general. You are still not giving me a specific answer regarding HOW they are forgeries.

Tacitus had to lie and had to be critical of Christianity. Do you understand the concept of a state religion? Because Romans had a state religion. If you were Roman for the most part you were either supposed to be a member of an established religion, and even they were frowned upon such as Egyptians worshiping their own gods of the Jews from Palestine worshiping Yahweh, the Greeks worshiping their gods, and the Romans of course were compelled to worship their own gods their state sponsored gods.

Jesus was born on 0 a.d.

@Ilikecoffeeandmusic

2 күн бұрын

Actually, most scholars believe he was born between 6-4 BC. :)

@michaeljohnson1157

2 күн бұрын

@@Ilikecoffeeandmusic stupidity...a person is born at 0 ....Z E R O

@user-iv5xy6wt2x

12 сағат бұрын

@@IlikecoffeeandmusicI knew he couldn’t have been right lol

The 27 books of the Gospels, Epistles, Revelation and Acts, known to Christians as the New Testament Bible were compiled from loose scrolls, and finished at different dates from 75 AD to 150 AD. Jesus and the stories were first told publically for decades before they were recorded on parchment. The story was constantly improved, distorted and changed, for around 300 years. The stories of the accepted Gospels all tend to duplicate each other yet, are contradictory as if they were a type of dictation taken down. Evidence for his birth does not exist as the year 0 does not exist, the date of his death and the time of his death are recorded differently in the Gospels. Almost no evidence of biographical information within the Gospels is found at all about the existence of 'Jesus" the man who was said to walk the earth 2000 years ago. No evidence about what he looked like, the sound of his voice. His lineage is totally made up, one Gospel writes he came from Adam? another that he came out of Abraham's family? The New Testament Bible is a faith document, not an academic document. For Jesus' existence to be proven it must be based on sources at the time, letters, artifacts etc. The New Testament as a concept was based on the Church's word fixing the story into stone after the Synod of 397, as Canon law, it was illegal to question the Bible or the Church from this date, thus the law stated Jesus 'must have lived'. There were ancient writers around in the first decades of the first century yet nothing has ever come to light to suggest evidence that 'If someone did walk around the streets after being crucified, it would have been recorded somewhere'.All of the Jesus miracles would have been big news but nothing real apart from the Gospels is recorded, and glorified by the Church afterwards. Josephus, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus wrote from 80 AD onwards. These scrolls had names added on by later Christian writers, i.e. the style of words is vaguely similar to the Gospels, again no evidence. A lot of the New Testament is actually for want of a basic word, a 'copy' from Ancient Egyptian legends and or Zoroastrian books - such as a god who could change water into wine, rose from the dead, was a good samaritan, a virgin birth, the god-son died for the believer's souls etc ( dated as paganism pre Christian) Tim Freke and Peter Gandy have found 180 similarities between the Jesus written about in the Bible and those of earlier religions - the New Testament Gospels, Jesus is copycat based on old myths ) These two historian academics found real hard evidence about the similarity- , The development of the Church - its rise to power, influence and its success has more to do with Paul, Peter and later Emperor Constantine plus the hard work of those former slaves who once given freedom ( living often in terrible poverty around the Empire,) was achieved wanted to believe so strongly in an afterlife as a reward for suffering throughout their lives - flocked to Christianity. These ex-slaves gradually moved into local government, trade, farming land they owned and crafts that by 290AD were great enough in number not to be ignored by Constantine who then had to accept the importance of the Christian faith to find enough soldiers for his civil war. Later as emperor, Constantine first made the 'Nicene Creed' in 325AD and then the 'Edict of Milan' just before he died 337 AD, making the Jesus story constitutional law throughout the empire, further stamping Jesus' existence, yet without any evidence. No real eyewitness or material evidence has ever been found as historical sources, to prove Jesus lived. As with all religions, belief is all in the mind. The church pulled a centralised confidence trick, to gain wealth and power. The church's marketing exercise was simply magnificent along with the ultimate logo, notably 'the cross'. The first 1500 years of the Jesus story were based on a strict doctrine and obedience, where questioning and evidence gathering were forbidden, the story of Jesus was just repeated without questioning, and no evidence of Jesus exists.

@ABendintheRoad

2 ай бұрын

So, when you stand before Jesus, you can tell your long winded story to him

@satyricon9955

13 күн бұрын

@@ABendintheRoad i would tell jesus the same long winded story as you say, i aleady told santa clause he is a fake too.

@satyricon9955

13 күн бұрын

@@ABendintheRoad i bet your one of the idiots that believe in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. dont you.

Yahshau kak Jesus he didn't set up any religion especially Christianity whites who were Romans made it up even changed yahash appearance from Black to white

@SanctusApologetics

6 ай бұрын

The gospels were written by ethnic jews, not white roman’s. Not all Roman’s were white either.

@Bluesruse

6 ай бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics We don't know who wrote the gospels, not even the canonical ones, let alone the numerous apocryphal ones. None of them say who they are, or what sources they used (a typical feature of fiction). Actually, now that I think of, "Thomas" does actually say/claim to be Thomas. But anyways... What we do know, is that they were all written in Greek, and pretty good Greek at that. Scholarship consensus seems to suggest "Mark" to be the first, and been written by Paul's gentile follower, and all subsequent gospels to be a retelling of this "Mark", also clearly not a Jew, ethnic or otherwise. "Matthew" seems to rewrite the story with a bit of Jewish focus, but actual Jews today would argue he's actually doing the opposite. "Luke" is a straight up Roman propagandist, who also probably wrote "Acts". And "John" is someone who tells the tale completely anew using all three, but more in his own words (which was the proper Greek way to retell stories actually), and using the most eloquent Greek; also almost certainly not a Jew, ethnic or otherwise.

@SanctusApologetics

6 ай бұрын

@@Bluesruse There is good evidence that the gospels were written by the aposltes in fact there are a large amount who believe Mark, who is jewish not greek, actually wrote the gospel of mark. The church father’s attestation is also very good from a historical approach.

@Bluesruse

6 ай бұрын

@@SanctusApologetics As a Christian apologist, you are of course bound to believe whatever it is you need to believe, and tell people what you need to tell. That does not make it a belief on good evidence. It is also either very ignorant, or just intellectually very dishonest of you to make the such claims as you just did. So this answer isn't as much an answer to you, as it is just a general service announcement written informing all in the spirit of actual honest inquiry, for those interested: First off, we can be almost certain, the no original apostle wrote any of the gospels. The texts themselves don't claim this, nor does it make much sense to propose this, as most likely none of the apostles were even alive by the time the first gospels were written. Second, a belief in "Mark" to be from the pen of a Jew is rather odd, as it would be like an "American" explaining what McDonalds is, while confusing it with Burger King and fine dining. Just because "Mark" has some words in Aramic doesn't mean he's a Jew (not only Jews spoke Aramic, neither would "Mark" have to learn Aramic from a Jew, nor would he have to be proficient in Aramic to be able to pull a few words of it). "Mark" makes mistakes no Jew would make, so it's quite ridiculous to claim him to be a Jew, not to mention on "good evidence". Especially when "Matthew" is quite clearly unhappy with "Mark", and works double time trying to fix some of the totally embarrassing mistakes from a Jewish perspective. And when you don't even specify any specific "church father", it's impossible for me to comment, other than the fact that from a "historical approach" anything the "church fathers" said should be taken with a grain of salt, because from a historical point of view, most if not all the church fathers proposed as history has been shown to be false, either purposefully, or otherwise. Most notably the belief and attestation, that "Matthew" was written first, when it quite clearly wasn't, and now the church story makes absolutely no sense, since we allegedly have an actual disciple of Jesus himself (Matthew) copy almost completely and verbatim the work of a mere companion (Mark) of a guy (Paul) who never even met the guy (Jesus). Utter nonsense. The church fathers simply didn't know, so they just made shit up, because the knowledge was either already lost, or they were lying their asses off for the sake of their faith like you, or both. But of course, none of this matters to you, and I don't expect it to, because it's like arguing about math with someone who thinks we have "good evidence" that 1 + 1 = 3, or at least claims so with a straight face.

@RexKochanski

3 ай бұрын

"Whites who were Romans" were actually olive-skinned like most modern Italians. The only "whites" the Romans knew were "barbarian" tribesmen, Germanic or Slavic, who often didn't get along with each other or the Romans. Also, why would the Roman olive skins make up a religion for themselves and then viciously persecute those of their number who professed that same religion?

And then the emperor Constantine fearing he would lose his empire converted to Christianity and changed the Sabbath to Sunday to honor his god Sol Invictus. Stated in Catholic canon 29. Its amazing what most modern Christians believe. Modern Churchianity and what Yeshua/Jesus taught are not the same. Great video, by the way!

@jimtom7313

Жыл бұрын

Catholic Canon 29 Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. The change was primarily to be seperate from judaism, (this was a goal of early christians, as they were often seen as a jewish sect by the pagan world, as evidenced by early christian writings such as the Didache, and the book of Acts (with the debate of whether or not jewish-born christians could eat with gentiles), It was also because Jesus rose on Sunday, so it was a more signinifcant day to christians that saturday. Also, it wasn't even changed by Constantine, Justin Matyr, writing in the first century, (less than 100 years after christ's death) recorded that christians worshiped on sunday (See the First Apology of Justin Matyr for details). Also, if you think this is a serious issue, read Romans 14:5-6 "Who art thou that judgest the [a]servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Also, if you think that it was to honor the god Sol Invictus, find me one source within 200 years of the catholic canon 29 that states this.

@jimtom7313

Жыл бұрын

Sorry to harsh, but I have some friends who have gotten mixed up with this sort of thing (mainly the christmas/easter is pagan crowd, and the black isrealites), it has gotten kinda old.

@jimtom7313

Жыл бұрын

Also, just for future reference, if a youtube video, or other contemprary source doesn't include scholarly, or primary (that is ancient and historical) sources, take it with a very large grain of salt, and find ancient sources that confirm it.

@willyfoofoo318

Жыл бұрын

@@jimtom7313 well when there's proof of what I just said it doesn't matter what you think is old. No proof in scripture for Yeshuas birthday, the pagans did worship the sun on that day though. All secular holidays are based on old pagan holidays, that's how the Catholic church stole true Christianity. All it takes is a little prayer and some digging. Jesus warned of man made traditions.

@willyfoofoo318

Жыл бұрын

@@jimtom7313 the true Sabbath is Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown for all time. Constantine changed this to Sunday. End of story!

only santa clause is real. he brings presents. jesus brings nothing.

@nictomlin9152

8 күн бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/q2GW2Nxvpc-4ebw.htmlsi=U1zgVtajsIHYkAJq

Tacitus describes the followers of Jesus as "haters of mankind." It is evident that Jesus was executed for sedition and later made out to be the son of god. He was a radical Jew who created a movement of mostly illiterate peasants. This movement is still going strong.

@SanctusApologetics

10 ай бұрын

The earliest accounts we have of Jesus completely go against your view . Your making up information to make Jesus some modern radical lol.

@TorianTammas

6 ай бұрын

Tacitus wrote: Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

"Superstition" is an apt descriptor, putting the myth of Jesus on a par with Santa Claus and leprechauns.

@nictomlin9152

8 күн бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/q2GW2Nxvpc-4ebw.htmlsi=U1zgVtajsIHYkAJq