Know More News - Adam Green - Is Jesus a Myth? Examining the Evidence

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 8, 2021 - Know More News - Adam Green

02:07:52

Is Jesus a Myth? Examining the Evidence | Know More News LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome, ladies and gentlemen to No More News Live.
	Thank you all for joining me.
	Today is Monday, June 7th, 2021.
	And right up front, I just want to put this out there.
	Trigger warning, flashing red trigger warning, because we are going to be examining an extremely taboo, stigmatized, sacred cow to go after.
	We're going to be examining is Jesus a myth.
	I had on philosophy professor and author on a couple weeks ago, David Skurbina.
	Talk about his book, The Jesus Hoax.
	And it's uh ignited a fire storm of triggered snowflakes and a bunch of uh it kind of started a debate a little bit.
	And this is uh we're talking about one of the most or the most influential character in all of history, Jesus Christ.
	And this is not a topic that is very popular with a lot of people in this genre.
	I'm sure I will get tons of thumbs down, thumbs down for Jesus.
	People that are dogmatic, closed-minded, that uh can't even uh can't even analyze the information without feeling like they are committing a sin.
	And uh I've been reading many books on this, and it's there's a very strong case to be made that Christianity and Jesus started as a mythological, allegorical concept.
	A book that I highly suggest, and and I don't even want to hear anybody talking trash.
	If you haven't read this book, Nailed Ten Christian Myths That Showed Jesus Never Existed at all.
	I've read this, listen to it on Audible several times, as well as part two, which is Jesus Mything in Action by David Fitzgerald, the f the part two of Nailed.
	Really, if if you refuse to look at this information and uh you just want to keep repeating and uh willfully ignorant and believing this mince misinformation about the reliability of the gospels and Paul's letters and all of the uh the total lack of evidence outside of the Bible.
	It not to mention the old testament is fake.
	The old testament is magic.
	The Jews were never chosen, they don't have a special covenant, the Lord doesn't speak and choose them and give them the land, and of course, if the old testament is fake and delusional that the Jews believe, then that would make Christianity also not real.
	And when we see how world Jewelry has used Christian Zionism, there would be no there would be no Zionism without Christianity.
	They wouldn't have the influence, they probably wouldn't have Israel.
	All of our political leaders of America wouldn't be flying over and bending the knee and kissing the ring and bowing to the wall in Israel without this.
	And the reaction I've gotten, I've also read The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty.
	This one's been out for like 20 years.
	I mean, some people like to do research and some people just like to have their comforting uh security blanket uh mythologies that make them feel good, the Hopium in a way.
	So these books, I'm sure there's gonna be uh comments up on Odyssey.
	Make sure to subscribe to Odyssey.
	This will be posted on BitChute, and I'm gonna show you some presentations, one from YouTube from David Fitzgerald, and another one from David Skurbina in a debate that he had.
	I'll put the links to the full videos down below.
	Uh I'm gonna be uploading that in just a minute.
	We're gonna start with about uh ten minutes of David Skirbina and a debate he had with a Christian on and this debate was specifically is the Christianity a hoax, not just a myth, but a deliberate intentional deception on the Gentiles.
	And then we're gonna get into uh talk about the actual evidence of any eyewitnesses, And when you see how flimsy, you know, we're talking about extraordinary claims.
	God, resurrection, virgin births, all of these miracles, uh dying for your sins, Yom Kippur sacrifice.
	We're talking about extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary proof.
	And the proof is anything but extraordinary when you actually investigate it.
	So the links to these books will be down below.
	Look forward to seeing your comments.
	It'll be on BitChute, but Bit Shoot is uh blocking people now and censoring, it's not looking good.
	Plus the comments are a mess there.
	Sign up for Odyssey, go to Odyssey.
	Uh links, links are all in the description below.
	And uh we're gonna be talking about you you hear so often, people won't even watch this video, they'll just show up in the comments and say, Oh, there's proof, there's Josephus, there's Tacitus.
	I've heard the Christians say it a million times.
	And when you actually look at the reality of Josephus and Tacitus, you see that this evidence is actually proof that that it's not real.
	Not to mention how many decades later it is.
	And remember that Christians, just so you know, if you're already turning off the video, or as soon as we get started here, you want to turn it off and just down thumb.
	Try to have an open mind.
	I know that the Bible tells you that the Bible says it's the truth, so it's it must be the truth, right?
	The Bible says that anybody that doesn't believe it is a fool.
	As if that's an argument.
	Anybody that doesn't agree with this foolishness is a fool.
	And I know that you the Bible teaches and you believe that anybody that doesn't believe in your Jewish messianism and your salvationism and your blood atonement sacrifices and worship the God of Israel, Yahweh.
	Anybody that doesn't believe in that is you're taught is antichrist, is the epitome of evil, is the devil incarnate.
	So that is a mental prison that they have used, so you won't examine the evidence.
	That's what cults do to their to their members.
	Teach you don't listen to the outside world, don't listen to anybody disputing that.
	Don't listen to anybody that will qu get you to question your own beliefs.
	It's that's not the way to real objective truth.
	And I think many of you guys know that.
	And uh let's get started here.
	David Scurbina, his presentation.
	Here we go.
	And this whole thing will be up without my commentary on BitChute, and then on Odyssey with my commentary.
	So sign up.
	Links are below.
	My central argument is pretty pretty simple.
	This is it in a nutshell.
	Uh, there was very likely the fact that there was no biblical Jesus.
	Uh it's almost certainly the case.
	Later on in time, they, someone said that there was.
	They wonder who they was.
	Somebody lied.
	Somebody lied.
	There was no biblical Jesus.
	The Bible says there was, somebody lied.
	So to me, I want to know who lied, when, and why?
	Those are the questions that I'm interested in.
	So that's what we'll be exploring here.
	And this is why we're exploring this as well.
	Who lied?
	Who was behind this?
	You know, we expose Zionism.
	You can't expose Zionism without exposing the Torah, Jews, end time prophecy of Christians as well.
	They all tie in together.
	They're two peas in the in a pod.
	They're a paradigm, a dialectic together.
	The Jews are the villains in the Christian story, and the villains and the special chosen uh elevated divine status, and they're or they're the villains, and then in the Jewish story, the Gentiles are the villains.
	More specifically, the Christians, who all the Christian Zionists now are saying, Oh, Christianity has always been satanic, filling the role of Esau, persecuting, and now they need to uh repent and worship and serve the Jews as Esau.
	So part one, why the Jesus story is false.
	There's two basic issues with uh the Jesus uh story.
	First of all, we have what I call the problem of the evidence, namely that we don't have any, that we're lacking in evidence.
	The second major issue is what I call the problem of the chronology.
	It relates to the datings of the writings in the Bible, in the New Testament, and in some other contemporaneous writings.
	So we'll see that uh in a moment.
	So we'll walk through each of these two problems very briefly here.
	Number one, on the evidence side.
	So the main evidence for Jesus being the Son of God was the miracles, right?
	So we all know about Jesus' miracles.
	In fact, in the New Testament, there are 36 documented miracles.
	They typically fall into three categories.
	We have the uh nature-based miracles, we have the healings, and then the raisings from the dead.
	So in total, we have thirty-six of those in the New Testament.
	We also, of course, have the virgin birth, and then we have the resurrection.
	To believe in Christianity, you have to believe in so many outrageous uh uh miracle things.
	Like you have to believe also Christians validate the idea of Yom Kippur, scapegoat, blood magic, ritual atonement, and uh and the Passover Lamb, Exodus.
	You have to believe it all.
	Moses, Mount Sinai, Exodus, the patriarchs, everything, the flood, Noah, the whole story, Adam and Eve, going back all the way to Adam and Eve and the talking snake, and the the the sky daddy with the magic apple curse.
	You have to believe it all.
	So I guess we can call it thirty-eight uh miracles, uh, if you like.
	My claim is that if the miracles were real, they would leave evidence.
	Real miracles would have some evidence.
	So, for example, eyewitness writings.
	Virtually all the miracles had eyewitnesses, people who were there that saw them or were the subject of the miracles.
	Some of the miracles had many thousands of people.
	The fishes and loaves uh feedings, we had two of those in the Bible, and that's a total of uh nine thousand people at those two miracles.
	Nine thousand witnesses.
	We would expect witnesses to miracles to document, say something, tell somebody who wrote something down, but we don't have anything like that from eyewitnesses, nor do we have it from any contemporaneous sources who lived at the time.
	Not to mention, if God intervenes in the world and does all these miracles back then, what why doesn't he just continue to do them?
	Why is he hiding?
	Why uh they could settle it and everybody would know who the one true God is, and the one the one true religion if God just spoke himself.
	Instead, he never he never says anything and everybody speaks for him.
	And in the in the Jewish uh story before Christianity existed, the Gentiles were the enemy, and when you get your enemy to in in and coerce them, trick them into worshiping the one true God who happened to choose the Jews,
	and you believe you look towards Jews for salvation, salvation is of the Jews, as it says in the New Testament, and that you're grafted in with their covenant and they're the root and you're the branch and all of this stuff, then uh you're spiritually conquered.
	If you believe in Jew, if you're uh a Gentile and you believe you worship Yahweh and you uh believe in uh you follow a Jewish Messiah, a shepherd, like a sheep, and they believe you're goem cattle, you are spiritually theologically conquered.
	And I don't want to hear you're gonna see in the comments on Odyssey, I I advise you all to go look at him.
	You're gonna see so many people spurging out triggered emotional responses with no substance, personal attacks, calling me Jewish, calling me antichrist, screaming blasphemy as if that's some type of an argument.
	So this is actually a very big problem.
	You would expect somebody in the area at the time who had heard about the miracles, maybe didn't see them, but heard about them, would be writing about them.
	Uh the primary source, of course, would be the Romans, because the Romans were, of course, in charge of uh Palestine or Judea at the time.
	And we would expect the Romans, they were documenting things, they were the formal authorities, they would have documented things had they heard or had any any evidence that there were these Jesus miracles.
	Unfortunately, we find nothing.
	We might even expect some physical evidence, depending on the nature of the miracle, some kind of uh I don't know, an icon, uh a remnant, a relic, something that would actually be physical evidence of a miracle.
	And unfortunately we have nothing, absolutely nothing.
	Nothing from the whole life of Jesus, which runs roughly from three BC to the year thirty.
	We have no evidence from that time.
	We have to evidence for decades after the time of Jesus.
	So this is God's plan.
	He sent He He incarnates in man to to to uh sacrifice himself to himself to fulfill his own rules and and forgive our sins for the the fall of man as the story goes and the magic apple curse.
	And uh no contemporaneous writings, no and there's no evidence.
	This is his plan.
	He wants the whole world just to believe, and he gives you this story, this ancient mythological story with all these miracles, and you're just expected to believe.
	This is the best evidence he can come up with.
	This game that God is hiding, and oh, you just have to believe, and you're rewarded with eternal life.
	And and then in the afterlife.
	And if you don't believe, you you have freedom of choice.
	You don't have to believe and accept the blood and the and the scapegoat atonement ritual.
	But if you don't, you will burn, you will suffer, you will go to hell.
	And that was very effective.
	It's still very effective on weak minded people that are manipulated and controlled by fear, fear-based mind control.
	I witness writings, no physical evidence, nothing.
	Absolutely.
	evidence.
	He wants the whole...
	Obviously, if God is real, he loves us and he wants us to be saved.
	He doesn't want us to go to hell.
	And he couldn't come up with better preserved evidence, more proof...
	Or just to continue to show show miracles and to speak to everybody at once with clarity.
	We have we don't have that.
	We've got uh uh books written by unknown authors, unknown times, you know, uh edited and and messed with and translated over and over again and uh full of contradictions, that's what he gives you.
	That's what you get.
	I think we're faced with a few options, maybe just three options when it comes to the miracles.
	First of all, either the miracles happened and no one wrote anything, that seems highly implausible.
	Secondly, the miracles occurred, people wrote about them, and all the writings were lost, not just most of the writings, all of the writings.
	That also seems highly implausible.
	Or more likely there were no miracles at all.
	And I think I What's more likely, come on, even Christians have to admit, if you ask them, if they're being honest, what's more reasonable that all of these myths and all this theology and mythology is is just allegorical foundational myths, made up stories, or it all really happened.
	What's just what's more likely, honestly?
	And it's funny, they can totally just go, oh, Islam, of course, that's all made up, it's it's nonsense.
	Every other religion throughout time, that's complete nonsense.
	Oh, but ours, ours are all real.
	And if you don't believe it, we will uh and worship our one monotheistic God.
	It gives that gives the people that speak for the one monotheistic God the divine authority to tell other people what to do.
	That's how that works.
	It's a scam.
	I think that's far more likely case.
	The problem of the chronology, let's look at the dates for a minute, and then we'll see a little bit of give it an idea what's going on here.
	See, already it as if people aren't listening.
	Buzz Lightbeard says, Adam sounds like he's talking out of spite.
	See, that's just one of these BS comments.
	Okay.
	I'm mad that people are duped and people are falling for stuff where there's no evidence.
	And then he says, Josephus, Tacitus, the vast majority of historical scholars, this is their go-to talking points.
	The vast majority of scholars, they they talk about it chapter after chapter in that book I showed, part two, Mything in Action, how they've always been Christians and they work for Christian institutions, and they've dominated the field, and they've I've they've just taken things for granted because people used to believe them.
	New new uh new studies, people are questioning it, and they've always questioned it since the very beginning.
	And Josephus and Tacitus, we're gonna get there.
	That is not good proof.
	If the best you can do is Josephus and Tacitus, it's pathetic, and it's not gonna convince anybody.
	And if that's good evidence to you, then you're just got co confirmation bias.
	So Jesus dies, he's crucified in the year thirty AD.
	In thirty-three AD, Paul converts from Judaism to Christianity, has a vision of the risen Christ.
	Paul is a key figure in the hoax.
	We'll come back to him a little bit later.
	Paul the Pharisee.
	Uh, but we have a huge gap in time.
	After Jesus dies, Paul converts.
	We have 20 years, fully 20 years, and we have nothing at all.
	No writings, No documentation by any of the Christians, by Paul, by the Romans, anybody.
	No writings for twenty This is the divine plan.
	Nobody writes anything down after after the Jesus, all the Jesus uh biography supposedly happened until twenty years after with Paul.
	Paul converts and doesn't write anything.
	He even says, Oh, and then fifteen years I went to Damascus for fifteen years, and then I and then I came back and then fought with all of the supposed Jesus' brother and Peter, fought with them over he never even met Jesus.
	He just got visions and said, Oh, I see him in the in the uh the scripture.
	He found him in the scripture.
	That Mark was the first book, as we're gonna cover later, of the gospels that was written, and they believe it was after seventy AD, and that uh it's all allegorical.
	You you read this book, it's all taking verses from the old testament, mix mixing and matching from the old testament and retelling a new story.
	In the next twenty years, from fifty to seventy AD, this is the dating of the thirteen letters of Paul.
	You're probably familiar with the thirteen epistles of Paul.
	Those date, according to the experts, between fifty and seventy.
	At least half of those letters are fraudulent.
	Uh so yeah, we won't worry about that.
	We'll put those aside.
	I think even uh Dr. Williamson would agree that at least half those letters are not truly by Paul, but we'll set that aside for the time being.
	And the first New Testament Bible to be created was by a guy called Marcion who believed in a mythical allegorical Jesus.
	I don't know why my OBS is doing this.
	And uh, he's the one that first collected the letters of Paul.
	Didn't believe in a historical Christ.
	In the year 70, the first gospel appears.
	This is the Gospel of Mark.
	This is generally dated to the year seventy, that's the earliest of the four gospels.
	That shows up in the year seventy.
	The next two gospels to to appear seem to have been Matthew and Luke.
	Those were apparently written about the year eighty-five.
	And I've also read Luke is actually probably somewhere more uh closer to ninety-five A. D. Because it he took parts from Josephus' um his uh Antiquities of the Jews.
	He took little little historical things and then used them and kind of copied it and put it in, and they've they've proven this.
	And the last gospel was John written about the year uh ninety-five AD.
	Synoptics.
	The Gospels are the only source of the documentation for our knowledge about Jesus.
	Documentation of his life, his life history, what he said, the miracles, everything comes from those four gospels, and yet they date extremely late, much later than you would expect.
	Particularly if two of the four gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, you would expect, I would expect, as soon as Jesus dies and is risen to heaven, immediately you would think his followers would document his life story.
	If if the story is true, he dies uh according to the prophecy, does the miracles, uh goes up to heaven, re uh uh resurrects from the dead.
	All that's true.
	Why do we not see any gospels or anything written from anybody until decades after the fact?
	If any Christian tells you that's good evidence, or that's that there's no problems, that's not problematic, they're not being honest with you or themselves.
	It's a miracle he's risen to heaven, his body is gone.
	It's clearly clearly true that he's the son of God.
	Immediately you would start writing down life is his life story.
	What did Jesus say?
	So we don't forget we won't have to document it right now.
	You should have had gospels written immediately in the year thirty, as soon as Jesus dies.
	But we don't see that.
	We don't see any gospels when Jesus dies, nothing for twenty years.
	The first gospel shows up forty years after Jesus dies, then we get other gospels fifty and sixty years after Jesus dies.
	Somebody waited a very long time to write those gospels.
	That's a very strange situation in itself.
	And important to note that the letters of Paul were first.
	Paul the Pharisee, the self-admitted Pharisee, in the in the Jesus puzzle, it talks a lot about Paul's letters, and his version of Jesus doesn't have all the bi biographical uh details as they do in the Gospels.
	Those were made up later on.
	And uh, and there was remember Paul didn't create Christianity, but we have those are the earliest writings that we have, because he didn't create it because he supposedly persecuted existing Christian groups, and I believe those were those were uh kind of Jewish Gnostic or pre Christian mystery religions that that they were referring to.
	And they got this idea of the logos of Jesus from uh Greek myths, Fanies protagonists.
	Uh Bjorkness talks about this in his book uh Rise Above the Gods uh Who Hate Us, and uh Jesus stories are are in the New Testament are retellings of stories of Moses, Joshua, um uh Melchizedek, the high priest of the old testament, and uh what was I gonna say?
	Um oh what it's based on Greek myths and the the Gnostic, the logos, the demiurge, which was Philo the Jew, that the Hellenized, he Hellenized Judaism, he mixed the Greek myths which with the Torah, and that's what you end that was the precursor to the New Testament.
	Very likely that Paul was following Philo and the idea the concept of the logos.
	But Paul's letters, it's more of a mythical uh Christ in heaven, crucified in heaven, not all of the earthly biographical details.
	But it's even worse than that.
	If we look at the actual fragments, the physical remnants, uh pieces of the gospels that we own, um, those are even later than those dates.
	It's not like we have gospels from those early dates, not even close.
	So, for example, the oldest fragment from the Gospel of John is called P52, it's just a fragment of the gospel that dates to the year 125 AD.
	The oldest fragment of Matthew dates to 175 A.D. Of Luke, it's 200 A.D. And of Mark is 250 A.D. So if Mark, for example, was written in the year 70, but the oldest scrap that we have is from the year 250, that's a huge gap of yeah, almost 200 years.
	You hear the pro see the problem with that?
	Even if Mark was written right after the uh destruction of the temple and uh shortly after 70, Mark the first gospel that's all allegory of the Old Testament.
	The oldest fragment we even have is from 250 AD, and that's not the whole thing, that's just a small fragment.
	It's not till the 350s that we have a whole version.
	So think of all the changes that could have been made when there is this was being copied by scribes, by by God knows who, how many times, uh you know, all of this supposedly happened in Aramaic, but it's all written in Greek.
	That's another major problem as well.
	Of which we have no documentation, we have no idea of uh what happened, what was changed, was the Mark from 250 the same as the Mark from 70.
	We have no idea.
	Absolutely no idea.
	Even the Bible itself, I think people uh don't realize that the oldest physical Bible is actually much later than those periods.
	The oldest physical Bible, piece of uh actual document is from uh is the Vatican Codex.
	It's held in Rome, it dates to the year 350 AD.
	So if the Bible was completely written by the year 100 AD, the Old Testament and the New Testament, but we have to wait 250 years to have a complete physical Bible.
	Once again, we have lots of problems.
	We don't know what changed, what edits occurred, what insertions were made, nothing.
	We have a huge gap in our knowledge.
	And in fact, the new book uh Jesus Mything in Action, they talk about how the endings of Mark and another gospel, they added things on.
	It's like there was one ending, and then they the the original Gospel of Mark, it just had Jesus disappearing, and then that was it, and then later on they added more stuff than the book.
	The other problem is for the non-Christian writings.
	The Christian writings cause a problem.
	The non-Christian writings are also a problem.
	The earliest non-Christian to write about the Christians was Josephus.
	Josephus writer.
	In the year 93, he wrote a book called Antiquities of the Jews, and he gave uh one paragraph, one paragraph uh mentioned that there were Christians that they existed, and there was this fellow named Christ that they followed, and that was it.
	It was just one paragraph and a long work, and he mentions them in the year 93, and that's it.
	That's the best.
	That's the best.
	That When Christians go, oh, there's proof.
	You'll see it in the comments, even though we're disproving it right now.
	You'll see even in memes, you'll see it all over the internet.
	This is what they say.
	Josephus and Tacitus, 93 AD.
	You realize that's 60 years.
	Nobody wrote anything until 60 years.
	And then number two, uh it's not even proof.
	Josephus was Josephus was born after Jesus was supposedly crucified.
	He wasn't an eyewitness.
	And then and then the idea, there's no question that Paul's writings were around, Mark's writings were around.
	There was early Christian groups.
	There was early Christian groups.
	Christian groups doesn't mean that Jesus was real.
	Especially when there was there was Gnostic type Christian beliefs where there was a mythical archangel Christ figure, a logos figure.
	Yeah, they quoted him 60 years later.
	And Josephus is actually that this whole citation is fake.
	The book, uh the book nailed goes so deep into it.
	Eusebius uh fraudulently added it in.
	He got his cop because we don't have the original uh antiquities of the Jews from Josephus.
	Um that we and all the early church fathers never sourced this paragraph.
	That's another problem.
	You think if Jesus was really the miracle man that that the Bible says he is, there would be all types of writings from all over the place.
	Witnesses saw something, they wrote stuff down, they told people who historians who wrote stuff down.
	We're talking about the most magical thing, miraculous thing ever.
	The only true magic of all time, really, and nothing is written until 60 years after.
	And it's a it's uh it's a hoax, it's fraudulent.
	Eusebius added it in.
	He got his copy from Origin and Origin never cited, and actually, Origen was mad that Josephus didn't write about Jesus.
	That's how you know that they added it in after the fact.
	Eusebius is one of the uh uh much of what we know about Christianity is because of Eusebius, and history has not been kind to him.
	He has been proven a uh a hoaxer and a fraud.
	And then now we'll get into Tacitus.
	You'd think Josephus, if Jesus was real, there would just be volumes and volumes from every historian of the time.
	Philo was another one that should have written about him.
	All of the all the in you'll hear Christians say, Oh, well, there wasn't a lot of people, we don't have a lot saved.
	There's tons of stuff documented from that time.
	And what God can't use his divine power to preserve anything, so people can be have a little bit of evidence in the future.
	Earliest Roman mention uh of the Christians is even later in the year 115 AD, Tacitus, who's the great Roman historian, he writes a book called Annals.
	He gives two sentences to the Christians, two sentences in the year 115.
	Also in 115, Pliny is writing a letter to Trajan, the Emperor Trajan, and he's going on for four or five small paragraphs, he's complaining about the Christians, they're causing trouble.
	And what happens is Christians have confirmation bias.
	They want to hear that there's proof.
	So they just hear from somebody else, oh, there's proof, Josephus and Tacitus and Pliny the Elder, his letter to Trajan.
	They haven't read books of academics and historians actually looking at this critically, not with a bias, not with a motive, not with the agenda of spreading Christianity, and in and also, even if Jesus was uh there was a real person that you know did some things, fought the Jews.
	This is what I used to believe a few years ago.
	There was a real Jesus, a real person, they they myth mythologized him, they added miracles to him, and uh, but he was a legend for reforming and fighting the evil Jews of his time.
	I thought that was the story.
	But even if that's true, it doesn't still mean Christianity is real.
	It's there doesn't have to be a mythical Jesus.
	It could be based on a real person, and they just created legends after the fact.
	That's that's what many people believe.
	But it's actually when you look into it, it's more likely that he never existed at all.
	But you see, Christians have a paradigm, a worldview that is built like a house of cards.
	If you pull any card out anywhere, the whole thing falls apart because it all the whole story has to go together and be true, otherwise it it proves that it's not true.
	Whereas from from uh the critical point of view, you know, we could we could argue one point in technically maybe it maybe there's not enough evidence we can't prove for sure, but it's we still could be right.
	It doesn't, it's not dependent upon one issue like it is with Christians and believers.
	Pliny wants to punish them.
	But clearly that they exist.
	And in these books, it's just chapter after chapter long hour long chapters getting into all the details about these issues.
	Christians don't do it, they just share the memes and they tell themselves, oh, there's proof, Josephus and Tacitus.
	But again, this is a very uh very problematic issue from the Christian side.
	If the Romans, who are documenting everything that was going on in Judea at the time, they spent almost a hundred years before they even wrote a single word about the Christians.
	That's really an astounding story.
	If Jesus died, was crucified, he he he commits the he uh uh performs his miracles, dies in the year thirty, decades go by, and finally in the year one fifteen the Romans start to write about the Christian movement, then clearly it was so inconsequential or non-consequential that uh the Romans wrote nothing about it until almost a century later.
	And I think that's quite damning in itself.
	Very damning.
	So the conclusions then from uh this first part is I think we just did not have any Jesus miracles.
	That seems to be the most likely conclusion.
	If that's true, then Jesus was not divine, he was not the Son of God.
	I think he did exist.
	I think he was a mortal man.
	Um I'm not totally sure.
	I'm probably I could uh I'm kind of on the fence on this one, but let's for the sake of the debate, let's say he existed.
	He was a mortal man, a human being.
	He was also a Jewish rabbi.
	I I I don't know, I I'm not sure if people are familiar with that, with that Jesus being a Christian was actually a Jewish rabbi.
	Is that familiar to people?
	I used to think so, but I I I guess I wasn't really sure.
	They refer to Jesus as rabbi many times in the New Testament.
	Just to give you a little bit of background.
	So Jesus, in fact, was Jewish, um, at least if we believe the Bible.
	So in Luke it says he regularly attended the synagogue.
	Matthew says uh he came to fulfill the Jewish law.
	In the cope, the the anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish Christians that want to cope and say, Oh, he's not Jewish, he's not Jewish, fulfilled, he's come to fulfill the Jewish law, do not change one letter.
	It went to synagogue, celebrated Passover, called called the king of the Jews.
	I mean, come on, enough with the coping and the denial.
	Of course, he was declared king of the Jews in Matthew.
	It's all completely Jewish.
	He admits that he's the Jewish Messiah.
	Hebrew, Israelite, Torah, whatever you want to call it, semantic games they try to play.
	So descended from David.
	That in fact he was Jewish.
	There's many times in the New Testament that Jesus is in fact is called the rabbi.
	I won't read through all of them, but yeah, three at least three of the four gospels, Jesus is called a rabbi.
	Rabbi, it's good to be here.
	Peter said, Rabbi, look, Judas said as an I rabbi.
	Rabbi, where are you staying?
	Yeah.
	Well, just what does history say about Jesus?
	Now, even though he's supposedly the most influential person in all of human history, as soon as you actually try to pin down history, the first thing you get from apologists is, oh, well, you know what the funny thing is, there's really no reason for contemporary historians of his time to have taken notice of Jesus.
	But is that right?
	So this is David Fitzgerald now, and in his books, I'm telling you, I I just I listened to these in the in the last year, nailed Jesus mything in action and nailed ten Christian myths that showed Jesus never existed at all.
	I I advise if you guys want to know the truth and and you don't want to be enslaved to Yahweh and to the uh the paradigm of the of the chosen ones, you want to be liberated from this uh this mythology.
	These books are a great start, highly suggest them.
	Oops.
	It seems like there's a few biblical incidents that his voice isn't this high, I sped it up a tiny bit.
	That might have made history at the time.
	First of all, we've got Caesar taxing the world.
	Now, Luke's gospel says that Jesus was born the year Caesar Augustus declared attacks on all the world.
	This creates all kinds of problems, not least of which because Matthew says that Jesus was born during King Herod's reign, which ended in 4 BC.
	And the only Roman census at that time was at 6 AD, which is a gap of 10 years.
	There have been many, many, many famous attempts to try to rectify this, and none have hiled up.
	We also have Herod's slaughter of all the baby boys in Bethlehem to try to get Jesus.
	We have Jesus' triumphant entry in Jerusalem.
	He entered in Jerusalem, and the entire town welcomes him as their king, and yet somehow the Romans don't seem to notice that either.
	Jesus casting out the money changers.
	Now, we all know Jesus is said to come in and cast out all the greedy money changers from the temple.
	But as Robert Price points out, the temple area covered 34, 35 acres, the equivalent of 34 football fields.
	So it would have contained thousands of pilgrims, innumerable livestock stalls, money changing booths, and it was crawling with armed guards to prevent just this sort of thing in the first place.
	So we've got two possibilities.
	Either Jesus was this one man kung fu army of death who did all this on his own, which is possible, it is Jesus, or some scholars have said, perhaps what it was, is that he led a small force of zealots to take over the temple and cast out all the money changers.
	And that's certainly reasonable, except that's all the more reason that the Romans would have taken notice of it.
	And then of course we have the There's a qu a good question for Christians.
	The Romans were occupying uh Palestine, Judea, at the time uh that Jesus supposedly, and this is this is why everybody's you know uh the the anti-Zionist favorite thing about Jesus.
	This this is gives him the controlled opposition.
	They gave you a hero.
	They gave you a hero that turned you into a limited controlled opposition theologically, even whether you're you're consciously controlled or not.
	Why did the Romans not have any record of Jesus casting out the money changers out of the temple?
	Why did nobody write this down uh until except for the gospels?
	And the gospels were written by people trying to convert Christians.
	They weren't skeptical, they won't they didn't write it in a in a historical way.
	Where are the dates on the uh on the gospels?
	They're they're meant to be theological, literary, allegorical gospels.
	And did you guys know that the the whole temple area was so big, like how how many people did he actually kick out if it really did happen, and then how do the Romans never say anything about it?
	Question.
	Another question that won't get answered in the comments.
	You will see nothing but personal attacks.
	See, the devil works through this one.
	Anybody that doesn't go in along with your Judeo fantasy is the devil.
	We address that in the beginning.
	Blasphemy is not an argument.
	It's funny, that's you're an anti Christ if you don't go along with this Jewish messianism in the blood and washed in the blood, just like you're an anti-Semite if you don't believe the Jews are chosen.
	It's funny how it's rabbis in these Christians that are screaming about blasphemy.
	Blasphemy just means we don't agree with you.
	It's a non-argument in the first place.
	So we've got two possibilities.
	Either Jesus was this one man kung fu army of death who did all this on his own, which is possible, it is Jesus.
	Or some scholars have said, perhaps what it was, is that he led a small force of zealots to take over the temple and cast out all the money changers.
	And that's certainly reasonable, except that's all the more reason that the Romans would have taken notice of it.
	Jesus, okay, in the chat now it says, Jesus preached against the Jews.
	You're it's if you're saying something like that, you don't you're not comprehending what's going on.
	If this was a deception, if they were trying to set up a controlled opposition dialectic, are are you expecting them to just completely love the Jews?
	How is it going to be a controlled opposition mythical leader if it doesn't say bad things?
	It's sure it says bad things about the Jews, but it also has enough uh enough uh uh sleeper cells in there to be exploited, like we're seeing exploited all over the world today.
	So obviously it was flawed in a way that could ultimately benefit them at their end times.
	And that's the Jewish prophecy is that they Esau, Rome, Christianity will take over the world, and then they will subjugate it In the end of days.
	Exactly like we're seeing.
	And then, of course, we have the events surrounding Jesus' death.
	All kinds of weird supernatural shit comes down after Jesus is crucified.
	There's an earthquake.
	In fact, there's two earthquakes.
	There's a supernatural darkness that covers at least the whole region, if not the whole world, depending on which gospel you're asking in the form.
	The sacred temple curtain in the Holy of Holies tears from top to bottom.
	And there's the resurrection of many holy people who appeared in Jerusalem.
	According to Matthew, somehow, Mark, Luke, and John miss that, along with every other historian in history.
	And then, of course, after his death, a day, or possibly eight days, or possibly forty days after that, depending on which gospel you ask.
	Jesus comes back, remains on earth, and then goes back up to heaven in front of many witnesses.
	We'll come back to that later.
	So these are just a few of the more conspicuous incidents that we see in the gospel that we have no corroborating evidence for at all.
	Buzz Lightbeard says, sounds like Adam believes in the Jewish prophecy, then.
	With a laughy face.
	Yeah, it's very clear I don't believe in prophecy.
	It's the Christians who believe in prophecy.
	I don't believe in Torah prophets blabbering if they even existed, just some some uh schizophrenics blabbering in Hebrew, and then the high priests are like, Oh, I like what he's saying there.
	That sounds pretty good.
	He's a prophet, God is speaking through him.
	Who decided who was a prophet and who was a crazy person thousands of years ago?
	Oh, oh, the Jewish priests, okay.
	Alright, I guess it's settled then.
	The and then the Lord said.
	Like, if you really believe ancient Jews in the desert writing down, and the Lord said, Hath chosen thee, and everyone that dealt shall not worship you shall perish.
	You think that's real?
	You all you all you non-Jews worshiping the God of Israel, Yahweh, who hated you in the old testament.
	How do you rationalize that he used to hate you, but now you're saved because his chosen people uh rejected the the Messiah he sent them?
	Like, talk about a plot twist, all this dramatic three-act script, the scripture that they're following of prophecy, it's self-fulfilled prophecy, and it's Christians that believe in the prophecy.
	It's Christians that are validating the delusions of the Jews and their all of their prophecies.
	But if you ask anybody, and even most atheists, they'll assure you, oh, yeah, there's a whole battery of contemporary eyewitnesses who attest to Jesus.
	So let's bring these guys out.
	This dozen and a half or so are the ones who are most often cited as witnesses for Jesus.
	And we don't really have time to go into all of them, so I'm just gonna spring ahead and go into the ones who could are the most credible.
	Let's put them on the timeline.
	Here is our eyewitness timeline.
	Here's the first century.
	Now here's Jesus.
	Now, if you look, the points on that are extremely pointy and well-defined.
	You've got four BC, 33 CE.
	But in fact, it should be a lot fuzzier because we don't really know when he was born.
	As it says, it could have been as early as 4 BC, it could have been as late as 6 AD, and we really don't know what year he died.
	In fact, it could have been 31 CE, it could have been 33 CE, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke are right.
	Or it could not have been 33 AD or 31 ED, if John is right, because he has them dying on a different day altogether than the other gospels.
	Yeah, no problem there.
	Let's see where the rest of the witnesses pop in.
	Would you look at that?
	Okay, this is the witnesses.
	This is the graphic.
	I want Christians to address this and at least admit.
	Some of them will admit that it's not good evidence, and they'll say, Oh, that's why you have faith.
	You just have to believe.
	Yeah.
	Believing in faith is not a virtue to believe in things without evidence.
	Whether they're comforting for you or not.
	The first century, Jesus right here, supposedly died around 33 AD, and nothing until Josephus, this much later, and all the rest.
	You see memes.
	A Christian guy sent me on Facebook after one of my first videos taught uh investigating Christianity, and he goes, There's so much proof.
	He sent me a meme with a list of these names.
	And the first name on there, I looked it up, and it it he never mentioned Jesus at all.
	It's a total total disinfo.
	And I told him, I said, Where's the proof of that?
	Show me where he ever mentions Jesus.
	And he goes, Oh, I never fact-checked that meme.
	Imagine my and then I told him, read these books.
	He goes, Oh, I don't want to read that.
	I can't read.
	That's satanic.
	That's what I hear.
	Stay away from that.
	Stay away from anything that's gonna tell you the truth.
	It's kryptonite for people to uh research and reading isn't the forte.
	Questioning your own beliefs.
	That's how you that's how if you don't question your own beliefs, your confirmation bias, your cognitive dissidence, you're an echo chamble chamber.
	As you can see, absolutely none of these guys are in any position to give any contemporary eyewitnesses of time Jesus lived, not a single one of them.
	And to be honest with you, I won't even hold that against them if their testimonies had anything relevant to say.
	But most of their testimonies are discussing Christians, and nobody disputes that there were Christians in the second century or the first century.
	And again, in the book, I I go into what they actually do say.
	In fact, out of all the eyewitnesses, the only one that could even be considered a near contemporary to Jesus is a Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus.
	And even he was born after Jesus' alleged death and wrote sixty years after that.
	We'll come back to him later.
	Now, this isn't to say that there weren't people who were there to notice, and that no early surviv accounts survive.
	This is what you'll see Christians say, Oh, there wasn't no everybody was illiterate back then, or we don't have anything preserved from back then.
	That that's the best you can do.
	You need extraordinary evidence to prove that all this stuff happened.
	And the best you can do is just say, Oh, there's not really anything, but there's Josephus.
	Like, it's pathetic.
	Pitiful.
	People, this is this is the how flimsy the evidence that has just dictated so much of history.
	Judaized the world, according to Maimonides, prepared the world for the age of Mosheok.
	From the first century.
	Now, despite the apol the fervent wishes of apologists, the first century is not this total black hole of history.
	It's one of the best historical documented periods that we know in history.
	And there are historians and other writers who did live the right time and the right place to see the beginnings of Christianity.
	And what's more, these writers had plenty of good reasons to be interested in it enough to say something about it.
	And there are plenty more Roman and Greek and Jewish writers who did do all those things, but didn't have reason there to write.
	We have plenty of writings here's where you would totally then and they go over it in these books.
	Plenty of historians from this time that were in the area that had every motive that would have written about it, but it's not there.
	And then there's even some people where it's like you would think, oh, this is the chapter where they should write about it, and it's missing, as if it would because they didn't write about Jesus, so the Christians took it out.
	They were mad.
	And there's all this stuff with the early church uh fathers and the stuff that they said they weren't aware of the gospels.
	There's so many problems everywhere you look if you actually just investigate this.
	Here's a couple of those.
	Just touching on the real fast.
	Epictetus was a major Greek philosopher who espoused a brotherhood of man that was remarkably similar to Christ, but he makes no mention of Jesus or Christianity whatsoever.
	But that's okay.
	Marshall and Juvenal were observant social satirists.
	They these two poke fun at all aspects of first century Roman society, but they have nothing to say about Christians.
	And again, maybe that's okay.
	Maybe Christianity was just wasn't on the radar yet, or maybe they just didn't think Christianity was funny.
	Though, strangely enough, later Roman satirists like Lucian found Christianity very funny.
	Lucius Marcus Aeneas Seneca, Seneca the Elder, is widely regarded as the greatest Roman writer on ethics.
	So it's certainly odd that a writer on Roman ethics would have nothing to say about what's arguably the greatest ethical shakeup of his time, but that's exactly the case.
	Pliny the Elder was a scientist who wrote volumes not just on natural and astronomical phenomenon, like say earthquakes and supernatural darkness, but also on legends and cultic beliefs.
	Now here's a guy who would have been really interested in everything that happens around Jesus and Christianity, but he has nothing to say about either.
	And this should raise a huge red flag for us.
	And there's two others that aren't on this older slide, but they are in the book, and that's Seneca the younger, who like Pliny also wrote about nature and strange phenomenon.
	And he wrote a book called On Superstition, De Superstitio, which was lambasting all the major religions of his time, and yet nothing to say about Christianity.
	His brother, Gallio, is actually in the Bible.
	He's the judge in the book of Acts at Paul's uh trial.
	He not only has nothing to say about Jesus, he has nothing to say about Paul either, which is very strange.
	But those are all Romans.
	Let's see what we can get from the Jews.
	Oh, Too far.
	Justice of Tiberius is a Jewish historian.
	Now, Justice of Tiberius lived in the first century.
	He was a native of Galilee, lived just a few miles up the road from Jesus' hometown.
	To make the whole thing just perfect, he wrote a huge history covering the entire time when Jesus lived.
	And in fact, the only reason we even know about justice is because of what he had to say about Jesus.
	He doesn't have a goddamn thing to say about Jesus at all.
	Which completely outraged the the uh the uh Byzantine church fathers in the ninth century, because he's a Jew, so naturally he's not going to mention Jesus, is what they say.
	Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher and writer who was alive before, during, and after the time of Christ, when Christ had his triumphant procession, when he drove the money changes out of the temple, when they had the birth earthquake and when he's crucified, all the holy people zombieing through Jerusalem.
	He was alive for all that.
	In fact, we know he had strong ties to Jerusalem, and he was even in Jerusalem close to the time of these events.
	He may have been literally on site for these events, but he doesn't know about any of this or seem to know anybody in Jerusalem who knows any of this.
	Now, mind you, he wrote entire books on other sects of his time, such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae, but nothing on Jesus, nothing on Christianity.
	And this is particularly weird when we realize it was Philo who developed so many ideas that influenced Christianity, such as the idea of the logos, the word, as in the word uh came flesh and dwelt among us, and in the beginning was the word.
	There's also Nicholas of Damascus, who was Herod's personal friend, also his advisor and his court historian.
	Philo, I wonder if E. Michael Jones knows this.
	You know, he always talks about logos.
	Philo the Jew who Hellenized the Torah mixed in Greek myths with the Torah, he had the concept of the logos, and he the logos uh he connected to a Old Testament passage about Joshua, that's Yeshua.
	He saw Yeshua as uh as the logos, and it then it wasn't written down in about the logos until John, possibly as er as early as ninety-five, as late as one fifteen, I think, maybe even later, one fifty.
	Um, yeah, the the the concept of logos was Neoplatonic, and it's Philo the Jew before Christianity.
	And there are many, many, many others.
	And also, there's not just these witnesses, but there's also suspicious gaps in writers that we do have records of.
	And there's completely lost critiques that are mentioned by early Christian writers, but lost critiques of Christianity that are completely gone, were never saved.
	So there's a whole wealth of writings that we have uh missing and opportunities for them to write that we have on that to go unwritten.
	Now, some people claim that the Talmud writers knew about Jesus.
	So let's take a look at their Jesus.
	Actually, let's look at both of their Jesus.
	This is interesting as well.
	Oh, but the Talmud mentions Jesus.
	Oh, have you actually investigated that?
	They're referring to different Jesuses.
	And it later on that the Talmud was finished in the year 600, so there was there was Christians all around the world, or there was lots of Christians by the time 600.
	So, and they were they were hating on the Jews because they c killed Jesus, so of course they're gonna have animosity towards them.
	That's the point.
	They wanted to have that be the dialectic, the Christians and the Jews.
	Look how it's played into their hands.
	ultimately now today.
	This is.
	One of those is Jesus bin Pandera, who is reportedly a miracle worker and the bastard of a Roman soldier named Pandera.
	He was said to have been stoned to death and then hung on a tree on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem, which sounds good until you realize this happened during the reign of Alexander Genaus, about eighty years before Jesus was supposed to be born.
	The other, Jesus bin Stada, was a first story of Jesus is about somebody.
	Remember, Jesus um Yeshua Joshua is a very common name back then.
	Because it's a the it's a Torah name.
	And uh the the the one the one of the mentions of Jesus in the Talmud is actually from somebody long before the time that Jesus was supposedly here.
	But this was at Lydda, 30 miles from Jerusalem, and this is in the second century, about eighty years after Jesus was supposed to have died.
	And there is a Jesus bin Nazri who is mentioned in later Talmuds in the Middle Ages, but it's clearly a satirical one, and it was clearly written around the fourth or fifth century.
	So it's plain that the rabbis in the early on had no eye knowledge of Jesus apart from what they read in the Gospels.
	There is another part in the Talmud where the story about the boiling excrement, they call him Balaam, Balaam is the name, which means it which is another name for Satan, sort of, but there's also a prophet named Bolaam.
	And uh but that is a reference to Jesus, a coded reference, and cause uh it connects to something else.
	I can't remember uh specifically right now, but that one is a reference.
	But just because they're saying you know, they could be just as duped uh by the New Testament as all the Gentiles were in the later six hundreds.
	So let's go back to a Jew who does have plus the Jews want the the the elite Jews want the average Jews to not become Christians.
	They want to keep them Jewish, so they want to have animosity.
	They want this to be the schism.
	It's two Jewish sects arguing over who has the covenant with Yahweh and who and who the real Moshiach is.
	When you get down to it, chanting Christ is king is no different than Chabad chanting, We want Moshiach now.
	They both want uh Moshiach to come and save the day.
	And it's so it's so like appropriating and cucking and and just cringe how non-Jews are like, Oh, we're saved by the Messiah too.
	The concept of the Moshiach, the Messiah, is is the the king that comes and liberates the Jews from the Gentiles, the Romans and uh the pagans.
	That's the where the concept came from.
	I don't care, I don't need to be saved.
	I'm not a Jew in ancient Israel that needs to be saved from the Romans.
	I don't need to be I don't have original sin because of some apple thousands of years ago.
	This is just meant to control you.
	...have something to say about Jesus.
	This is the only person on the apologist list who could even be considered the close contemporary.
	This guy trying hard to look like Julius Caesar is Flavius Josephus.
	He was born Joseph bin Matanyahu in Jerusalem in thirty-seven CE.
	He was a reluctant Jewish commander on the side of Jerusalem during their war with Rome in the late sixties and the seventies.
	But he later went on over to the Roman side, which by Irish standards makes him a filthy little traitor, but since he wrote all these great historians, we can cut him a little slack and spend some time with him.
	He spends many pages describing a variety of different miracle workers and messiahs in the first centuries.
	But does he talk about Jesus?
	Well, this time it looks like we do have somebody says something about Jesus.
	In volume eighteen, chapter three of his book, The Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus describes all these various misfortunes that fell under the Jews under Pilate.
	At one point he's pushing grave images of Caesar on them.
	Another there's a massacre.
	All very, very gloomy stuff.
	But right in the middle of all these depressing little tales of woe, there's this.
	Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure.
	He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.
	He was the Christ.
	So this is the actual writing, the Testimonium Flavium.
	And you're telling me this is all he wrote, is a one paragraph?
	And he didn't even write it.
	Eusebius, it's an interpolation, added it in there hundreds of years later.
	And even if supposing, for the sake of argument, hypothetically, say that Josephus did write all of this.
	Why did he stop there?
	If he believed all this happened, and this is proof, this isn't even proof.
	This is just saying that there's Christians around at the time.
	Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross.
	Those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.
	So this is such a glowing there's no way Josephus would write this because he was a Jew working with the Romans, but i if he believed all this, why would he not just be a Christian?
	And the tribe of Christians, so Named from him are not extinct at this day.
	Now, funny thing about this, this whole thing sticks out like a Brittany Spears video in the middle of a funeral.
	Let's just take a quick look at the highlights of these, and you tell me if you think this was written by a first century Orthodox Jewish historian or by a forgery, uh Christian forgery later.
	Look what he says.
	He calls him the Christ.
	He says, the ten thousand wonderful things concerning him, and he appeared to them alive again.
	So it's hard to believe that an Orthodox Jew, let alone a historian, wrote any of these things, calling a criminal that was condemned by his fellow Orthodox Jews, the Christ, a Greek word for the Messiah, and gushing over the oodles of wonderful things he did, like a schoolgirl, and casually mentioned that, oh yes, he returned from the dead.
	Now, as an Orthodox Jew, of course, I don't believe he was a Messiah, but clearly, you know, he was.
	And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct at this day.
	Well, of course, there were never a tribe of Christians, and it's doubtful if Josephus would have made such a mistake.
	But the term Christian wasn't even used until the second century, and Christianity didn't even get tribe-sized until well into the second century.
	It was just scattered in organized, unorganized communities at that time.
	And he says, as the divine prophets had foretold, but normally careful historian Josephus doesn't mention who these prophets are or what they said, which is very unlike him.
	You see, and this is the way Christians cope.
	Anybody that doesn't believe in their their uh their Jewish Torah delusions, there's they're calling this guy a Jew.
	His name's Fitzgerald.
	Last I checked, Fitzgerald is not a Jewish last name.
	The idea that anybody it it's such a mind prison that you worship a Jew and you believe in all the Jewish prophecies and uh and all of this stuff, but yet you then you're gonna say anybody that doesn't believe it is Jewish.
	It's mental illness.
	Mental illness.
	I feel bad for the people that are the Christians are snowflakes are triggered in the comments, like, oh, they don't believe in Jesus, you're a Jew.
	That they're that brainwashed in their mind prison that we're trying to wake you up that you're being duped by the Jews, and you're calling us Jews.
	And it's a non-argument.
	It's a non-argument.
	It's stupid.
	Another subtle indication of forgery that's not apparently obvious is the mistaken use of the word gentile.
	It just so happens that Josephus, who was writing for a Roman audience, never uses the word Gentile in any of his writings.
	For instance, throughout Antiquities of the Jews and the Jewish Wars, he'll refer to non-Jews as Greeks or Syrians, regardless of their actual uh ethnicity.
	More proof that it's a forgery.
	And incidentally, I had a Christian friend of mine who called me on this and said, uh, no, Dave, in my edition of Josephus, he always calls it Gentiles.
	I said, Really?
	You're kidding me.
	What edition do you have?
	The uh Penguin was the magician.
	I said, that's the exact same edition I have, and you'll have to show me where that was.
	He never could.
	So Josephus would have been extremely interested in Jesus casting out the money changers from the temple, but he makes no mention of that.
	That's just the kind of story he liked, because he spins pages and pages documenting the antics of other lesser loser messiahs and miracle workers in great detail.
	Not to call him a loser, but John the Baptist, Judas of Galilee, Theodus the Magician, a Jewish Messiah called the Egyptian, all of whom he rebukes as deceivers and impostors, and he has nothing good to say about any of them.
	In fact, pointing out Uppity Jewish would be Messiahs is kind of a special focus of his.
	But this lone little snippet is all he has to say about the guy who's the real deal.
	He's a little bit of a I love it.
	Uh we shame our ancestors, says, imagine loving no more news for exposing the Jews, but at the same time worshipping one.
	Yeah.
	Um imagine being an anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish Christian and believing that Jews are of the Father, their devil, and then falling for their biggest Jewish uh lie of all.
	I already uh I I shared this on Twitter.
	See, live now is Jesus a myth, examining the evidence, and we have a knee jerk.
	Did I not just ask a question and cover and talk about this whole concept?
	Oh, I didn't know.
	Oh, he he's the only one.
	We'll never be able to defeat the Jews without the magic Jew, without the Jewish Messiah, without the rabbi.
	We'll never who will save us from the Jews if not the Jewish Messiah.
	You don't understand how you're trapped, how you how you've fallen for a scam.
	The only thing that can save us from the Jews is a Jew.
	Is the king of the Jews.
	I told you, this is what appealed to me as well.
	Flipping the money ta uh changers tables, rebuking the hypocritical Pharisees.
	I get it.
	They Mind you, trying to lead the best way to control the opposition is to lead it.
	They gave you somebody who didn't like them.
	The whole pagan world already didn't like them.
	And they replaced that whole pagan world and got them to worship a Jew who who believes that God that Yahweh is God of the world.
	That's a victory.
	You guys are too blind and in denial to see it, I think.
	He spends longer time describing the Toddy little sex scandal in the next paragraph than he does in any of this describing who he thinks is the actual Messiah.
	And in fact, the reason that Josephus didn't like any of these miracle working Messiahs is that he spent his whole career declaring that his patron, the Emperor Vespasian, was the actual Messiah.
	And lastly, the very next paragraph after this suspicious little passage starts by saying, at this time there was another sad calamity.
	Sad calamity.
	We just saw how the commercial for Jesus, what sad calamity?
	That's the other part.
	If you remove the whole passage about Jesus from Josephus, it flows much better.
	Like they're talking about it's just like a small mention of Jesus in a chapter that's completely about something else.
	You'd think that there would be whole books saved in the record written about all this stuff.
	Not these magical propaganda biased gospels decades, sixty years later.
	Stopping beating the dead horse here.
	In light of all this, really, no historian argues that it's not a forgery anymore.
	The only argument left anymore is how much of a forgery it is.
	And Christians try to insist that, well, it's only a half forgery, that Josephus really wrote something and some monk in the Middle Ages tried to fix it up.
	Well, if that's true, how come the next paragraph ends that way?
	But here's the real kicker.
	The passage itself doesn't even appear until the 4th century.
	Earlier Christian church fathers and apologists, like the church father Origen, like uh Clement of Alexandria, were constantly using Josephus in their ammo against uh pagan debates.
	They would have given their mothers for a nice ace in the hole like this, but they never do.
	You see how problematic that is?
	Early church fathers, Origen and Clement Clement of Rome never mentioned Josephus.
	They always quoted Josephus, his antiquities, but they never mentioned this.
	Nobody did until the year 300.
	You realize that's proof that it's a forgery.
	But somehow in the fourth century, it starts getting quoted by this man, Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea.
	Do our Christians should be mad that they've been lied to, that they've been given fake fake evidence.
	Let's just take a second to get to know him, because I'm convinced most people have never heard of him, and yet he is responsible in a large part for the Christianity we have today.
	And I'm I think Christianity owes a huge debt to this largely unsung, tireless, illustrious, lying son of a bitch.
	The father of ecclesiastical history, Edward Gibbon, the author of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, said Eusebius himself directly and indirectly confesses that he's related whatever may rebound to the glory and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of his religion.
	And Eusebius himself has a chapter entitled, It will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment.
	Wow.
	That's Eusebius, that's who came up with this Josephus forgery.
	It will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy.
	And we have example after example of catching him in a lie or changing the facts to suit himself.
	He drastically rewrote his official church history at least five times that we know of to keep up with changing church politics.
	But how do we know that it was Eusebius who did the forgery?
	Well, one strong clue is that he inherited his library and therefore his copy of Josephus from Origen, who is one of those church fathers that not only knows nothing about the passage, but criticized Josephus for never mentioning Jesus.
	He made other contributions, and we'll skip over these real fast because I'm trying to make it quick and dirty today.
	But one important thing he did do was Constantine's vision of the cross.
	Now, how many of you have heard the story about Constantine seeing the sign of the cross in heaven and uh that converted him?
	Well, the interesting thing that this life-changing event doesn't appear in any biographies that they wrote while he was alive.
	In that earlier biography, Eusebius tells a completely different story, complete opposite.
	He wins his battles because he is a lifelong Christian and totally pious.
	It's not until he dies that we eat that that wonderful story.
	And the funny thing about Eusebius is most of the examples of his lying comes from his best defenders, who are usually 19th century English clergymen trying to uh to restore his reputation.
	So just backing up a little bit, this blatant forgery in Josephus, and actually there's another reference in Josephus later on that's not a forgery, but is simply talking about another Jesus altogether, and later Christians thought it was talking about Jesus.
	To recap, this forgery means that if we look at the entire first century, we are left with a grand total of zero historical references for a hundred years.
	So what do we have?
	We have the gospels.
	So everything we know about gospels stems from these four books.
	Now, you guys already know this because atheists have already matched up as being the top reveren uh religion knowers.
	So I'll skip through this.
	Old Testament, New Testament, New Testament's made of the Gospels, which, along with the book of Acts, purports to be the biographies of Jesus Christ and the accounts of the early church.
	There's four of them, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
	The epistles are the writings of Apostle Paul and other Christian missionaries, and the book of Revelation is the source of innumerable bad Christian sci-fi movies and books about the rapture.
	Now, I think I also don't have to tell you guys that there's some discrepancies in the Bible.
	That's all right.
	Just a few.
	These are in the conflicting accounts of Jesus' genealogy and his nativity.
	And now what else we have and his childhood and his baptism.
	Now, what we have when we talk about this genealogy and his and his child is baptized.
	I love I love the the coping Christians.
	Uh somebody, something stroyer says, dude talking is a phony.
	He's a phony.
	Like, dude, you such a low IQ, like how is he a phony, smart guy?
	Where is he wrong?
	Phony.
	Like just do you guys just wait and see the comments.
	If I were to leave the bit shoot comments on, you would just be disgusted with how vile and retarded they all are.
	But Odyssey, they'll be a little bit better, but still you will not see any good responses to any of these major uh problems that we're covering here.
	Baptism is ministries and his apostles and his miracles, his teachings, his personality, and a very cornucopia of other contradictions about who and what and where he did everything.
	And we're not talking about simple divergences in eyewitness testimony or bad translations of it.
	We're not talking about, well, Matthew said he wore a blue toga, and Luke said it was a red toga.
	We're saying more like Matthew said this happened in Egypt, and Luke said it happened in Jerusalem, and John said that never happened.
	And so let's look at some of these.
	And please keep in mind that there are many, many more discrepancies in just these accounts, but it would take an encyclop entire encyclopedia to list them all, and there are several encyclopedias that list them all.
	Here we go.
	And by the way, I have Dan Barker to thank for all these.
	I've read several books from Dan Barker as well.
	His book God, the most uh evil uh character in fiction, something along those lines, is an excellent read.
	This is to see how bizarre and outrageous uh Yahweh is in the Old Testament.
	Who went to the tomb?
	Well, if we ask Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, James's mother, come to see the tomb.
	It's closed by the heavy stone.
	Mark says, Mary Magdalene, James's mother, and Salome, having already seen the tomb, come to anoint Jesus' body, wondering among themselves who will roll away the stone.
	But luckily they arrived to find the stone already rolled away.
	I remember my mom always telling me uh as a child that the Bible's real because the Bible is a perfect book.
	It's perfect.
	God made it, it's divinely ordained, and it's perfect.
	And then I realize that it's full of contradictory, like just crazy contradictions.
	And the the evidence of it is so flimsy, it's just it's uh it's it's not good to uh lie to children.
	Let's just put it that way.
	Luke says Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and other women, having already seen the tomb, come to anoint Jesus' body with no thought of how they're gonna roll away the stone.
	John says that since Jesus' body had already been anointed slowly shortly after his death, Mary comes alone and finds the stone rolled away.
	What is Mary find?
	Well, according to Mark, it was a young man sitting inside the tomb on the right.
	Luke says it was two men sitting standing inside.
	John says it was two angels sitting on each end of the bed.
	And Matthew says a great earthquake occurred, and then an angelist descended, blazing like lightning, paralyzed the Roman guards with terror, rolled away the stone, and sat on it.
	And again, I feel compelled to point out once more that these aren't even all the discrepancies in the resurrection accounts.
	The gospels are packed with contradictions like these, from before Jesus' birth to after his death and everywhere in between.
	And you can't sometimes hear Christian scholars admit, well, yes, it's contradictory, but that's to be expected.
	No one sees the same thing, and these all I'm I'm doing this video because I want to address these people.
	I want to debate these issues, and and even if they're bad at comments, I want to address them.
	Now we have somebody saying, uh they poisoned you against your own mother.
	No, I'm sorry, uh, I've got a million, but you're the ones that has your mind poisoned.
	You're the one that's under this Jewish spell, this prophecy magic.
	You're the one that's hypnotized and to be a blind, obedient sheep.
	Okay.
	You're the one that's been poisoned with this doctrine, not me.
	Like the way that they try to speak to you is so condescending.
	Like they're pure and good and God's on their side, and you're the devil and you're evil.
	It's uh it's a sick way, it's the way the Jews look at the world.
	I'll tell you that.
	It's very Jewish.
	Christians really start acting like Jews once you start exposing them.
	Oh, that's out of context.
	Oh, you're not Jewish, so you're not allowed to uh to interpret that.
	Um, what else?
	They say, Oh, you hate us, you hate us, why do you hate us so much?
	All the same arguments.
	We're eyewitness accounts, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And my favorite of all time is, well, the contradictions show that it's true.
	So let's do this.
	Let's just say that's not bullshit.
	And for our mom, my mom was raised in a extremely religious family, Christian family.
	She didn't have the internet at an early age growing up.
	It's near impossible for people to admit that they've been duped and to change it.
	It's like pulling out the rug from people.
	I don't even try to convince her.
	I I used to try to ask her questions or or you know, see if she had any answers to the things.
	She doesn't want to talk about it.
	She's comfortable, she likes she likes it.
	It's almost like, you know, I've noticed some of these people, it's almost like an addiction, really, in a way.
	They're uh they're addicted to the euphoric feeling you get when you sing in church or when you have your uh your spiritual uh feelings, your emotional prayers and stuff.
	It's like uh she did raise me well.
	She's a a wonderful, wonderful woman.
	But um, but I feel like she's been taken over by a cult, and it's like it's it's uh people are the term I came up with is Jesus junkies.
	You can really be addicted to it and it can consume you.
	All these people were real people.
	I'd rather live free.
	Who are these eyewitnesses that know so much when they're talking to one evangelist and so little when they're talking to another?
	I'll show you what I mean.
	Now, of course, in a court of law, this would all be thrown out in the first place for being mere hearsay, but let's say Mary herself is a real person and we have her on the witness stand.
	Sure.
	Maybe she's not going to remember what time of morning it was exactly or who was with her, or what got said.
	But honestly, are we supposed to think that when she talked to Mark, he say he said, Yeah, there was a guy, and he was sitting on the inside side of the tomb, and that's what I saw.
	And then when she talks to Matthew, says, Oh, yeah, then when there was a mighty earthquake, angel of the Lord came down, blazing like lightning, terror rolled the stone, terrorized the armed guards from sheer terror, and now see raise them from the dead, and of course, yeah, lots of other dead holy people came back to life from the tomb and started walking around Jerusalem.
	Good point.
	I mean, they literally try to replace alcoholism with religion.
	How many how many former drug addicts, you know, hit rock bottom and go to jail and then get clean and find Jesus?
	And then it's like, oh, Jesus is my rock.
	I I you hear it's such self-deprecating, degrading mindset.
	I'm nothing without God, like John Hagee.
	We were garbage until and we were unpure and unclean and damned for hell until the blood sacrifice.
	It's like our the the desire to be a slave, oh my Lord, my Savior, my king, I I'm a I'm a peasant, I bow before thee.
	It Like trembling in fear, because if you don't, you're gonna burn in hell.
	It's no way to live.
	It's no way to live in the world.
	Really?
	Really?
	So how can these gospel accounts be so contradictory?
	Well, first of all, let's take a look at who these authors were alleged to be.
	First up, we've got Matthew, Matthew Levi, tax collector, one of Jesus' twelve apostles.
	We have Mark, John Mark, who is supposed to be the interpreter of the Apostle Peter.
	We have Luke, said to be Paul's personal physician.
	He's also said to have written the book of Acts.
	And John, who's usually insisted to be the apostle John, son of Zebedee, but the text only says it was the disciple who Jesus loved, and there's been a lot of guesswork to determine it was uh John, but there's been other candidates as well, including Lazarus.
	Now it's interesting to see that Luke made the cut at all, since his connection is through Paul.
	And Paul wasn't an eye witness either.
	And apologists compensate this difficulty by declaring that Luke is an excellent historian.
	I'm gonna post this uninterrupted, but I wanted to respond to the comments.
	All these stupid comments that I've refuted so many times now.
	Okay, Uber Mind says now Adam and Jews have something in common.
	Hating on Jesus.
	Oh, you're a Jew.
	Do you the Jews hate hate Jesus, so you're a Jew too.
	The Jews love Jesus.
	Netanyahu loves all the Christian Zionists.
	They Maimonides says that it's a stepping stone towards towards uh the time of Mosheok.
	Give me a break.
	They worship the same God, they believe you they're chosen.
	Even the divine persecution uh of the uh the before the Holocaust, the old uh and uh the old Christianity that was more hostile before they repented.
	It played into their hand all of it.
	Uh Al says Jesus loves you, Adam.
	Yeah, uh oh, the Jews hate Jesus, huh?
	Okay.
	Right.
	How many Jews do you say, seeing that it's a Jewish scam?
	You don't see him.
	You say, Oh, they say, Oh, he he uh he we didn't kill him, it was the Romans, or he what he didn't fit our Messiah and he caused trouble.
	That's what Ben Shapiro says.
	He doesn't say that it's a myth and that they made it up as an intentional deception.
	You don't see them saying that.
	Who who else hates him?
	It's it's such a dumb article, and uh and I've said it so many times, and people still just keep regurgitating, it's a trope.
	They keep regurgitating the same dumb arguments.
	Do they base it on?
	Well, Luke says right in the beginning.
	And it's like Jew Jews and Christians are the same.
	You're both Jews.
	You're both chanting for Moshiach.
	You believe in a Jewish Messiah.
	There's nothing more Jewish than believing in Jewish Messianism.
	And and Torah prophecies.
	They're trying to call I reject all of this nonsense.
	I don't reject Jesus.
	I reject the whole concept that I need to have a savior to save me and forgive my sins.
	And it's not even moral that a scapegoat can die and you're forgiven.
	I'm sure it's very comforting for fucked up people that have done a bunch of awful things, so they don't have to feel guilty.
	So like placebo effect.
	Oh, I'm forgiven, I'm forgiven now, I'm I'm gonna go to heaven and live forever.
	Very comforting for this person that did all this fucked up shit in their life.
	He is an excellent historian.
	Well, all right then.
	That's right.
	And I cannot tell you how many blog posts I've seen where the comments are, all caps, Luke is the best historian, he's excellent.
	Careful historian.
	Except that he's not.
	That's the problem.
	Countless examples of uh why this is, including the fact that our excellent and careful historian friend has ripped off almost all his historical details from our old friend Flavius Josephus.
	And even then, not always accurately, which is how we know that he's stealing from Flavia.
	Oh my God, I'm sorry to keep interrupting.
	This is where he says Luke stole from Josephus and copied from Mark.
	Another another comment that we keep seeing.
	Is this a Muslim channel?
	says Colonel Blink.
	Uh how this is oh, you're you don't believe in this, so you must be an atheist, or you must be a Muslim, or blah blah blah, you must be a this.
	Uh again, such brainwashing.
	If I don't believe in the old testament and I don't believe in Abraham's covenant, I that means I don't believe in any of the Abrahamic religions.
	Another one.
	Stop confusing Christian Zionists with Christians.
	They're they've got some minor differences.
	Oh, it was a joke, okay.
	God, you guys can't joke with me.
	I can't tell the satire, okay, because people actually say these things.
	...Levis Josephus and not the other way around.
	What's more, while it appears he's very familiar with Roman sites and taverns, which he casually rattles off without explanation...
	Not only does he not know Aramaic, the language of first century Judea, he has very little knowledge of Judea itself, since he makes several mistakes that no Judean Jew would ever make.
	Now I say Luke, but I suspect you already know that the four official Gospels were not written by anybody named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
	And even conservative scholars have accepted that.
	And we could even question if these guys were real, but that's a whole other can of worms.
	In fact, all the gospel.
	Another one, another dumb comment.
	Ubermine says, This is a self-hating Jew channel now.
	I'm hoping there's not this many stupid people and it's in its unit eighty two hundred Hosbora just trying to cause uh mayhem and subversion.
	I I've shown my DNA test.
	I'm uh look at me.
	I'm I've got blonde hair, blue eyes, I'm six foot four, I'm I'm white as anything.
	People used to call me Albino.
	I grew up Christian.
	I expose Jews for a living, and all that's the best you Christians can come up with is oh you don't believe in Jesus, you're a Jew.
	It's like it's beyond stupid.
	You don't even realize how stupid you look ever when people fill my comments with this with this stuff, it just makes uh uh everything I do look stupid, like I got stupid followers.
	Thank you, Norma Jean.
	Gospels are anonymous, and titles like according to Matthew, or according to Matthew, call me Reptilian until late in the second century.
	And in fact, no one seems to have even heard of our gospels until well into the second century.
	You hear that?
	All the church fathers, they never mentioned the gospels until what what did he say?
	The second century.
	Answer riddle me that, Christians.
	Why did none of the early church fathers mention the Gospels, Gospels by name and and uh cite them?
	In fact, all the gospels are anonymous, and titles like According to Matthew or According to Mark were not added until late in the second century.
	And in fact, no one seems to have even heard of our gospels until well into the second century.
	One reference around the year one twenty is from Papius, the Bishop of Heropolis.
	He quotes from Matthew and Mark, but the only thing is his quotes don't match anything we have in our Matthew or Mark.
	Of course.
	Or they were still under construction in the year one twenty.
	Just ten years after Papius, Justin Martyr knows none of the four gospel authors.
	He calls them the memoirs of the apostles.
	So we have no way of knowing of who or how many people really wrote the gospels, and only guesses as to where or when or how many times they added the names on the gospels long after they were first written.
	Tell me that's not a problem.
	In fact, it's only until the year one eighty, which is a full hundred and fifty years after the supposed death of Jesus, that we even learn what the four canonical gospels are, and discover why they're exactly four, no more, no less.
	Does anybody know why there's just a four and no more no less?
	God says so, that's a good question.
	He is dead right.
	It's because there's four quarters of the earth and four universal winds.
	Science, people.
	Science.
	That's like uh the uh the Trinity, E. Michael Jones and Milo trying to convince uh Owen Benjamin of the Trinity, they're like, Oh, you find threes all throughout nature, so that's proof like that's the best they can come up with.
	Church father says, since the world sits upright upon four is supported by four pillars, it's only natural that the gospel is supported by four pillars.
	Mark, the oldest gospel, alludes to the Jewish war with Rome and the destruction of the temple in seventy AD.
	So it was obvious that it was written after that.
	In fact, some people think it was written it directly in response to that.
	And there are other reasons to think it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem.
	Matthew and Luke, for their part, they rework Mark.
	So we know that they came later still.
	And as I mentioned, our excellent historian friend Luke rips off Flavius Josephus quite a bit from a book that was written in ninety-four AD, so that is the earliest even humanly possible date for Luke, and it's probably much later because it doesn't get quoted until well in the second century.
	That's true of all the Gospels, by the way.
	It's also clear that the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke could not possibly have been written by anyone remotely close to Jesus, and not just because they would have been long dead.
	For one thing, all the Gospels are written in Greek, not Aramaic.
	And plus, both writers plagiarize largely word for word, up to percent of the Gospel of Mark, and simply add their own twists on it, sayings of Jesus and supposed historical details.
	This is not some crazy atheist heretical notion.
	This has been the majority opinion of scholars, all biblical scholars, for almost two hundred years.
	This is what they call the synoptic problem.
	And yeah, it's a problem.
	Let's ignore the fact that Matthew and Luke contradict each other in things like the genealogy of Jesus and his nativity story completely, and thus both of them can't be right.
	One of them has to be wrong, at least.
	But let's ask this instead.
	Why would a supposed witness like Matthew have to plagiarize the writings of some guy who wasn't an eyewitness?
	And just tweak his story a little bit.
	There's another question for the Christians they can try to answer in the comments on Odyssey.
	...witness like Matthew have to plagiarize the writings of some guy who wasn't an eyewitness and just tweak his story a little bit.
	Thank you.
	Why would Matthew, who is supposedly an eyewitness, or some Catholics will probably say he's uh he was an apostle, why would it be written uh after seventy AD, and why would he, if he was an eyewitness, copy ninety percent from Mark, the first gospel?
	And weirder still, the guy he's stealing from, Mark, supposedly got his gospel from his good buddy Peter.
	So why is it that the other gospels all have more anecdotes about Peter, including the example of Jesus saying to him, Peter, you are the rock upon which I shall build my church.
	I think Peter would remember that and told that to Mark.
	Actually, I think Peter would have said, Jesus, what's a church?
	Since churches hadn't been invented when he supposedly said that.
	And it gets worse.
	First of all, I'm getting ahead of myself.
	The author of Mark shows no understanding of the social situation in the Holy Land.
	He makes numerous errors that no Jew or anyone in living in Judea in the first century could ever have made.
	When you compare Matthew and Mark's gospel, you'll find that the author or authors of Matthew are constantly correcting his blunders about all aspects of Jewish society, the religion, the calendar, holidays, customs, attitudes, and yes, even Jesus requited repeatedly misquoting scripture.
	But one last nail in this coffin is that whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark shows a George Bush-like lack of familiarity with Palestinian geography.
	No one who actually lived in Palestine could have made the mistakes that the author of Mark did.
	For instance, Mark 31 says, Then Jesus returned from the region of Tyre and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee in the region of the Decapolis.
	So let's look on the map.
	So the route from Tyre went down the coast to the port city of Acho, and then down south to the Sea of Galilee to the Decopolis region, south and east.
	So where is Sidon on the map?
	Oh, there it is.
	It's twenty-two miles to the north and fifty miles out of his way, that he'd be walking on foot to get there.
	So to use a a uh uh Missouri metaphor, this is like going from Saint Paul to uh sorry, St. Louis to Springfield by way of Milwaukee.
	The point is Mark wasn't familiar with some aspects of it.
	In fact, the mistakes in Mark are so blatant that a church father Origen gave up completely on trying to make sense of his geography and said it has to be interpreted symbolically and mystically.
	Oh these are the three so-called synoptic gospels, which is Greek for seen together.
	I don't know what the Greek word for ripped off from one another is.
	Do you know it's all right?
	Okay.
	Now, but unlike these three clones, the Gospel of John is very, very different.
	In fact, it was rejected early on as being a heretical gospel by some Christian groups and church fathers, but it proved to be so popular that it couldn't be repressed, despite the fact that it has virtually nothing in common with the teachings or the theology or the style or even the content of the other gospels.
	As I said earlier, he even has Jesus being crucified on a completely different day.
	How do you cope with that?
	How do you rationalize that?
	That the of the four gospels, three are so similar and one is different in so many ways.
	This is this is God's work.
	This is divinely inspired.
	Is why why would God give us a book and try to our souls, our eternal souls are on the line here and he's going to give us a book that has got contradictions in it like that.
	That all it takes is is uh a little bit of uh examination to realize how problematic it is.
	And John's Jesus has a completely different personality much more badass and in charge.
	In the synoptics Jesus is a secret Messiah he never gives his secret identity he teaches his disciples mostly in private.
	He's constantly hiding his miracles he's telling lepers now don't tell anyone where I touched you it'll just be our little secret it was a mystery they had secrets as well parables but not John's Jesus oh no baby.
	John's Jesus knows he's God and he doesn't care who knows it because he'll tell you.
	In fact that's about all he talks about he might as well have a big t-shirt saying I am God written over because that is what he strode through Jerusalem saying all the damn time.
	Now in the Synoptics Jesus drives out the money changers at the very end of his career gets in hot water and gets crucified for it.
	John's Jesus no babies he kicks off his career three years before that by going into there and smashing some heads this badass mofo Jesus hardly ever seems to feel any doubt at all he doesn't cry like some little sissy boy in the Garden of Gethsemane.
	He doesn't tell any fruity parables there's no Sermon on the mount no blessed are the meek no love thy neighbor there is certainly no liberal turn the other cheek crap.
	No sir there is none of that in John this is a republican Jesus and I I've already seen a few people or a couple people are being a little emotional.
	They're like oh this guy's condescending or he's you know he's uh he's cursing or something his his books are much better.
	This is a rushed presentation but but his books that are linked below are I mean if you if you read these you have a lot of questions a lot of difficult questions to answer.
	And the thing is, is most Christians won't do it.
	They're taught that these books, secular books, worldly books are satanic.
	They'll get you, they'll send you straight to hell.
	They're dangerous.
	That's what they're taught.
	Willfully ignorant.
	Call the Jews the spawn of the devil, which is a little odd seeing as he's one.
	In fact, John spends his entire gospel bagging on not the scribes and the Pharisees, but the Jews as if they were this big amorphous blob of evil.
	which is odd because our anti-Semitic gospel writer be a Jew.
	But in one place John's Jesus says something uncharacteristically humble.
	He says the Father is greater than I and that's just one place of several in the gospels that contradict the idea of the Trinity and in fact the idea of the Trinity appears how can the Fat uh someone send this to Owen Benjamin to E. Michael Jones how can Jesus say the Father is greater than him if he is the Father if they're one and the same thing appears nowhere in the Bible at all.
	And isn't it a little weird anyway that the Old Testament God would never once even mention the fact that he's actually this three in one super god of the Father, the Son and some bird like spirit creature of some sort and in fact if you'd went to Moses and said anything remotely like that, what would happen?
	You would gotten stoned to Jeff and stoned to death at about two minutes flat.
	But as different different as all this is from the Synoptics once we get to the passion they don't debate they hate dude they use they used to burn people.
	They used to scream blasphemy it's a heretic burn him burn all their books Yeah reading is satanic literally that's what they taught in narrative yes from Mark too.
	Now he tweets the story put his own spin on it but it's very clear he's working off another copy of Mark.
	And sadly there's even evidence that the unique parts of John are plagiarized from still earlier writings such as the Greek uh Greek philosopher Pythagoras.
	There's also some obvious giveaways that it just like the other gospels it's been edited and added to here's one oh there's the Trinity hello Trinity in chapter two forms some more miracles and then after that in chapter four he does his second miracle.
	So it's clear that somebody's been patting the books.
	And I should mention that these are just the four official gospels that made it the cut.
	And there are many, many other gospels that did not get enough support to get into the Bible.
	Is anyone guess how many gospels there were?
	13.
	27.
	Couple hundred.
	Are we up to like 65 or so?
	It's in the 40s at least, yeah.
	Um one Christian website said that there was over 4,000, or some said there were 270, and they're all voted on at the Council of Nicaea.
	And that's just not true.
	The fact is it was far, far messier than that.
	There never actually was a one-time vote taken on which is gospel and which is scripture.
	It was a much more haphazard practice process.
	It took over centuries.
	Um there are over 29 scrolls found in early catches like the Naghamadi gu uh library, and many more that are listed in the writings of early historians that we've never found.
	And these are probably just a few of many.
	Who knows how many gospels there were that are have just been totally lost at time.
	Mark was just the first gospel written.
	If everybody had been happy with it, we wouldn't have four gospels in our Bible.
	Matthew wasn't setting out to write some new gospel of his own.
	He was just improving on the only gospel he knew and adding to it and cleaning up its mistakes.
	Luke wrote, on the other hand, when there were tons and scads of gospels floating around, and he tries to make it sound like his is the only one on the market that's the real deal, even including Matthew and Marks, who he steals from.
	John came along even later still, and he doesn't even pretend to try to be going along with the details of anybody else's gospel.
	So that's the state of our four biblical gospels.
	Four out of many, many more contradictory, reworked writings set down decades after the opposed events by anonymous author or authors who were later falsely represented as eyewitnesses.
	But the gospels are only half our source of information about Jesus.
	We also have the letters of the Apostle Paul and the Epistles.
	Or do we funny uh I'm gonna read a couple super chats right here.
	Uncle Tim says, God gave you a brain or a mind, but he doesn't want you to use it, because uh Satan.
	Read a couple of these super chats real quick.
	Appreciate you guys all sticking with me.
	I got uh the one of the next videos I'm gonna do, I'm gonna do a book review of the Christian Zionist book, When a Jew Runs the World.
	And then I'm gonna put up uh excerpts from Beware the World to Come about Eli Ravage and Disraeli, about uh them uh basically admitting about how Gentiles have been conquered thanks to Christianity.
	All right, super chats.
	Uh Wolf Kane with the diamond says, J's with an image.
	I can't read it, it won't click though.
	King Schlag with the diamond, thank you.
	Cornered space alien.
	Help support Adam with the Ninja Gini.
	Appreciate it.
	Cornered Space Alien.
	Never want to corner a space alien.
	That's like cornering a rat.
	Um corners uh fully support getting John Lamb Lash on.
	I'll reread his book and and uh and try to get him on.
	Uh Marshall H. What's up, buddy?
	Thank you as always for your great work.
	Appreciate it.
	Big John.
	Says, keep it up, brother.
	Don't let the isms get you.
	Yeah, remember what Prager said they're behind all the isms, huh?
	Yeah, never believe the official story.
	Always be skeptical.
	Everything's controlled opposition besides the one thing that's just so obviously controlled opposition.
	Um Saintos Bonacci or Bill Donahue.
	What about I'm not familiar with either of those?
	Sorry, uh Ragnarok.
	Big John says, God is real, he's not Jewish, though.
	Yeah, that's the other thing.
	They say, oh, you're you don't believe in Yahweh and the the God of Israel, you're an atheist.
	I've made it very clear.
	It's not a dichotomy like that where you have to believe in all this stuff, or you're an atheist.
	I'm more of an agnostic deist, and I believe that people who claim to speak for God are just trying to control you.
	Otherwise, let God speak for himself.
	And uh don't try to speak for him.
	That's kind of my stance.
	Um, all of the existence is such a miracle in the the universe.
	There could be there could be uh unending universes, consciousness, just everything is so amazing.
	I I don't I'm not an atheist.
	I didn't know I don't worship Odin before somebody says that either.
	I saw somebody was like, oh Adam, I want to see you debate Jay Dyer.
	J. Dyer's gonna straighten you out.
	Yeah, is that why he's running scared and doesn't want to debate?
	Why is he can't make a video responding to any of this stuff?
	Big surprise.
	He goes, I want to see Adam debate J. Dyer, Christianity versus paganism.
	As if paganism is like uh a world view.
	Paganism just means you don't believe in you're not a Judeo-Christian, basically.
	That's who came up with it, like the derogatory pagan word.
	Pagans were uh Egyptians, Persians, every other religion besides the Jewish religion is paganism.
	I'm not a pagan.
	I do realize how the how the Jews erased pagan culture, though, all of which is basically just Gentile culture, and replaced it, substituted their God and their fictitious history.
	And now you now all the all the Christians and white people around the world are like, oh, the holy land, save me the my my Jewish Savior, the king of the Jews.
	And then these people here just in denial.
	All right.
	Couple more super chats.
	God's in temple, not made by man, side of your head, Ragnarok.
	Um doing a great job, Adam says, human ex Big John, keep it up, bro.
	Bring it more often.
	We need to stop the Jews and the Christians.
	I thought uh for a time I thought it was the anti-Zionist Christians were were cool.
	You know, I'm friends with lots of them, and I'm still friends with them, but I think they're wrong, and I'm not gonna bite my lip, and I'm gonna I'm gonna speak my mind, and I'm gonna see if they can refute this stuff.
	Change my mind, prove me wrong.
	Haven't seen anybody do it.
	Nothing but attacks.
	Mostly mostly retards calling me Jewish.
	That's the best they can come up with.
	So, what about Paul and the other New Testament writers?
	Well, who was Paul, first of all?
	According to the official story, after Jesus' crucifixion, Paul became the greatest Christian missionary.
	He traveled throughout the ancient world, setting up churches and wrote several letters.
	Though many, if not the majority of biblical scholars now say that he only wrote seven of the thirteen letters attributed to him.
	Who was Paul's Christ?
	Let's take a gander at how he describes his Christ.
	Christ Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, the brightness of God's glory and the express image of God.
	He upholds all things by the word of his power.
	In him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
	He's the mediator of the new covenant, the great shepherd of the sheep, the great high priest who's passed through the heavens.
	He's disarmed and subjugated the supernatural principalities and powers, the angels and authorities.
	He's the Lord of both the living and the dead.
	He descended into the lower pits of the earth into the realm of the dead, preached to the spirits in prison there, and brought the souls of the captives out.
	He led captivity captive.
	He ascended on high, far above all the heavens.
	He gave gifts to mankind.
	He will deliver his followers from the wrath to come.
	He's a righteous advocate with the Father.
	He's able to subdue all things to himself.
	All things in heaven and earth were created by him, through him, and for him, and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.
	Now that is an awesome, awesome resume.
	But do you notice anything missing in that?
	There's nothing when Christian writers in Paul's generation speak of their Christ Jesus, that sounds like they're describing a guy who was lived on earth in Galilee just a few years before.
	They sound instead like they're describing a mythological figure.
	In the book of Acts, when people come on the scene and start preaching about Jesus, they go straight to the man Jesus, talk about all the wonderful things he did, and then they go into the fantastic wonderful things he did in heaven.
	In the first generations, this is exactly the opposite.
	We get all mythological Jesus and almost nothing that can be tied to a here and now.
	In fact, nothing at all.
	He only never talks about Jesus' death, the Lord's Supper, or any events of Christian Christ's life as though they actually happened to a Real live person.
	So how is it that Paul and other apostles like himself know Christ?
	Is it through what Jesus did in his lifetime?
	Did the other apostles tell him?
	No.
	Paul vehemently denies this again and again that he's received his knowledge from any man.
	He says he has learned about the Son through revelation and scripture.
	Scripture.
	I said that earlier.
	Jesus' puzzle gets into that.
	Also historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier.
	Paul says that he got it from Scripture.
	And if you if you see Mark, the first gospel broken down, it's all from retelling of scriptures from the Old Testament.
	And that's not because, oh, all the prophecies were fulfilled, it's because they have the prophecies, and then they write this the new act based upon the prophecies.
	What's more likely, please?
	God chose to reveal his son through me, he says in Galatians 1 16.
	The writer of Ephesians says, The mystery of Christ, which in former generations was not revealed to men, is now, now, disclosed to dedicated apostles and prophets speaking through the Spirit.
	Paul always points to Scripture as the source of his gospel.
	Everything he says that Jesus did is always according to the Scripture.
	Jesus did this according to the Scripture, blah, blah, blah.
	It's God through the Spirit who supplied this gospel, God who's appointed apostles like Paul to carry the message.
	It's important to recognize that Paul had been dead for decades before the Gospels were even written.
	Paul and the other epistles came first, the Gospel and Acts came much later.
	The only scriptures they knew were the Jewish scriptures.
	To Paul, the existence of the Savior up to this point has been unknown.
	He's been a secret, a mystery hidden away in heaven for eons by God.
	But now he's revealed along with the promise of salvation.
	This is what Paul and every other epistle writer is constantly telling us.
	They don't refer back to any sort of human Jesus, and indeed, in many places, there's no room for such a figure in their theology.
	They treat the Spirit of God and the Son of God as though it's exactly the same.
	Did Paul even know there was supposed to be a real guy named Jesus?
	If you look for any biographical info on the late Jesus of Nazareth, from Paul or from any non-Gospel writer in the entire first century, you are out of luck, because no one has anything to say about Jesus the human being.
	The words Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee never appear in the New Testament letters.
	The room word Jerusalem is never used in connection with Jesus.
	There's not a hint of any sacred sites, let alone pilgrimages, holy relics, the clothes, the things he used in his daily life, the things he touched.
	There's absolutely nothing of that until the fourth century, when pieces of the true cross start showing up, and Jesus' tomb is discovered, both of them.
	And the first shrine on the supposed mount of Jesus' death is set up, and the pilgrim business gets kicked off.
	So why the absence?
	The standard rationalization you get from Christian apologists is that Paul was uninterested in the earthly life of Jesus.
	Which is truly one of the lamest rationalizations to ever come out of Christianity.
	It's not the very lamest, but it's right up there.
	Acts says that after his conversion, Paul went immediately to the elders in Jerusalem and reported for duty.
	But according to Paul's own account in his letters, he waited three years following his conversion before making a short visit to Jerusalem for fifteen days to get to know Peter and James.
	And incidentally, he never tells us he was waylaid on the road to Jerusalem by a divine Jesus.
	Nothing like that ever occurs in his letters.
	And once he went to Jerusalem, he didn't make it back there for another fourteen years.
	So did Paul learn all the facts of Jesus' life on that one occasion?
	And if so, what was he doing for those three years before he went to Jerusalem?
	I got it mixed up earlier.
	I got the dates wrong, but that that's the that's the record.
	And if he visited any of these things, can I think he would have not at least shared his experiences at some point?
	At least at some point in his letters.
	It's often they try to claim that the example for the explanation for Paul's glaring silence about Jesus' life is simply that Paul, and I guess everybody else in the first fifty years or so of Christianity just never had occasion for mentioning things like all this mention missing info about Jesus in their letters.
	When you see Paul's letters and you see all of these verses and the examples that they give in Jesus' puzzle, it's it's just so obvious that this is what's going on.
	A couple super chats came in.
	Wallace with a diamond says, Totally agree with you, Adam, you're on the right path.
	Kimberly says, quote, Scriptures is just a script like the movies.
	I know that's where they got the word script is from scriptures, most likely, right?
	Or just like Roman script or common Greek word.
	But of course, they constantly have occasion and they miss it over and over and over again.
	The New Testament writers never cite Jesus' teachings or examples in all these squabbles in the early church that was tearing apart early Christians.
	Issues like circumcision, salvation, is it by grace or is it by works?
	Can we take supper with unbelievers?
	Jesus ruled on all these things, but instead they keep going back to the old Jewish scriptures.
	Here's one example.
	Jesus teaches that all foods are clean, and yet they are still arguing about it with Paul and the uh Jerusalem leaders.
	Why?
	And in fact, it's so bad that the writer of Acts has to fake a vision that Peter has to explain why it's okay for them to eat uh all foods.
	But if Jesus had already pronounced on the question, why are they jumping through all these acrobatic hoops to do it?
	If everyone remembered it, why was there any dispute at all?
	Why is it that sometimes Paul disagrees with Jesus?
	All these guys only had to quote Jesus' own teachings, and that would have settled the case.
	Issue over.
	So why isn't he ever?
	Ever.
	Wouldn't you think that when Paul sets off on his missionary journeys, people will be asking questions about this guy from Palestine who was the son of God and the savior of the entire world?
	If not questions about his life, at least things that they he taught.
	But instead there's a total absence of these things.
	There's a gaping hole of silence that lasts for over a century.
	And this silence alone is one of the strongest arguments that the entire gospel account of Jesus' life is nothing but a work of inspired fiction.
	Now here's another weird thing we find.
	Early Christianity, if it was started by a single person or a group of followers, it's a wildly, wildly schizophrenic movement.
	We know of at least a dozen early rival Christian movements scattered throughout the empire, including two main ones, two rival Christianities.
	Peter's Jewish-leaning community in Jerusalem that valued Mosaic law and works, and Paul's Gentile-based ministry that stressed faith overall and broke with the Jewish law.
	And there were many others as well that often had little in common with each other, and often he had different scriptures.
	And one other early rival of Christianity was John the Baptist's cult, by the way.
	Yet another early branch of Christianity was the Gnostics.
	Now, the name Gnostics is a blanket term for a wide range of different diverse groups, and scholars have tried long and hard to come up with one simple explanation that explains who they were and what their relationship was to each other and to the relation the religion that became Orthodox Christianity.
	Look, there's a Braxis.
	This is something some of the the uh autistic Catholic crusaders attack me on Twitter.
	There's a few of them obsessed with me.
	They always try to say that I am a Gnostic.
	I don't believe in any of this, these Jewish Gnostic myths.
	Gnostic isn't even a religion, that's just what they call all of the other mystery religions that were close.
	Just because I'm aware that they existed and when they existed and what they taught, even though I don't believe any of them, that's what they say, that they they make videos and attack me and claim I'm a Gnostic.
	Gnosticism and uh Marcionite, uh the Marcionites are so kryptonite to them because it proves it it's it's it's having all the knowledge in the full context in the background of of the reality, and it proves that they're uh what they believe is is myths.
	That's why it's so dangerous.
	They go, our Christian founding fathers uh to just refuted this heresy.
	That's their argument.
	Oh, so the more powerful Jewish sect silenced everybody else.
	That's what happened.
	The one powerful one monopolized, and then got that became orthodoxy.
	That's the argument.
	And again, I don't believe it, that's what they try to say.
	Because that's all they can do is lie.
	It's proving to be about as useful as the term mammal for trying to pin these guys down because their uh dogmas were completely and constantly mutating by whim.
	One feature that most of them shared.
	How could I explain this earlier?
	Sorry to interrupt, but th you're saying uh where is it?
	Oh, it's skipped.
	They're trying to figure out who diverted you from Judaism to Christian.
	Nobody diverted me.
	Okay.
	I've been talking about Christian Zionists for for like five years now online.
	It's always been the Christian Zionists.
	It used to just be, oh, yeah, I'll work with the anti-Zionist Christians.
	They're they're at least against the Zionist fanatics.
	They're they're the But now I realized even I mean the pro-Zionist uh Christians are the biggest slaves to the Jews, no bigger slaves than the Christians.
	That's how they've subverted the world is through Christianity.
	But even the anti-Zionist uh Christians, even the anti-Zionist Christians are still a limited form of controlled opposition.
	I'm not saying they're controlled, they're getting talking points from their their handler, Kabbalah rabbis, although that could be the case in some instances, but that's not it.
	It's just theologically.
	Like the the construct in their head is limited.
	If you're f if instead of telling the Jews you're delusional, you're not chosen, your Torah's not real, your prophecy's not real, they say, Oh, well, it all it is real, except you just got it wrong, and and you're not Jacob, we're actually Jacob.
	And uh and you don't have the covenant, we have the covenant.
	It it's it's it's enabling and playing into their fantasies.
	It it's it's like the Jews consider it validating, it keeps you you're enabling the Jews by playing into their paradigm and saying, Oh, yeah, that the Torah is the word of God.
	The prophecies are real.
	We're we're waiting for a Jewish Messiah too to save the whole world.
	You're playing into it.
	And like the the bit shoot comments I get, like from these Christians, most of the sick uh uh slanderous, vile people attacking me and and lying about me have been Christian fanatics.
	And that's just the reality.
	The Jews try to censor me, they they call you uh uh conspiracy theorists and blah blah blah, they attack you, call you a Jew hater.
	But the like the evil, deceptive uh slander, that's that's been coming from the Christians.
	So don't tell me they're my allies or that I started this fight.
	I'm only making these videos because people are are trying to attack me for it, and I'm gonna have to tell 'em, let them know what's up.
	I'm not gonna back down.
	In common was that the creation of the world was a huge mistake, and that pieces of God were trapped in bits of matter called human beings, and that by acquiring secret knowledge and practicing them, their rituals, Gnostics hope to learn how to rejoin with God in heaven.
	Bible scholars for the longest time just assumed that Gnostics were some later mutant form of Christianity.
	But over the years, after this finding things like the non Hamadi uh cache, it's become very clear that this is not the case.
	And several Gnostic groups predate Christianity, and in major portions of the empire, Christianity meant Gnostic groups who were in place decades and sometimes even centuries before Orthodox sex arrived.
	Hear that, Orthodox?
	Yeah, you you guys want to say, oh, oh, cr who's a base Christian Zionist?
	True news, oh, who who are they?
	Funny how I've never gotten any mention on their show, I've never got invited on, they won't even come on my show.
	But oh, who guest hosting is Milo, the gay Zionist?
	Okay, yeah.
	You don't see if you don't see the problems here.
	And and like I said, the uh the the supremacist, there are Christian supremacists.
	It's it's it's a minority, but Christian uh identity people, like we're the white ra they say the white race is the chosen race, and that's the real Jacob, and we have the birthright, and everybody's meant to serve us and we're the chosen ones.
	How can I it when I make videos exposing Jewish supremacy and their belief that they're chosen and that they have their Messiah, they want to rule the world.
	How can I how can I expose them when I've got all these Christians that are supposedly on my side saying, Oh, well, that's that's partly true, because we have the new covenant now, and uh and it's i d uh moshiach, they want a satanic moshiach, and our Moshiach is the real Moshiach.
	Like you don't you you gotta realize you're playing into their whole their whole religion.
	Even by opposing it, you're still playing into the paradigm.
	The Godhead, um sometimes he was something like John's mouthy Jesus, sometimes he had strange titles like Derdekus or the third illuminator.
	And some Gnostic Jesuses had an identical twin.
	Some Jesus had sex.
	One Jesus might have had sex with a male apostle.
	Some Gnostics thought that Jesus was totally divine and only appeared to die.
	Others held that he was simply a mere human man.
	and many other Gnostic groups were violently opposed to the idea that he could have appeared in the flesh at all.
	Now, it's impossible to know how many other forms of Jesus there were, because as I said, there were dozens of gospels alone, let alone Gnostic groups, let alone other groups that we think of more as Christianity.
	Christians don't really know what to do with things like the Gnostics because they're so different, and they're so bizarre from what we're thinking of as Christianity.
	But when we're talking about the early church, we're talking about these weird beard fleeting cultlets in first century Judea like the Gnostics.
	This was Christianity, even though we'd never recognize him today, and they would have been gladly burned at the stake, you know, hundreds of years later.
	Paul in his letter constantly harps on all the divergent groups and other apostles that preach another Jesus, one that's so different from his own that he lays curses on them and accuses them of being agents of Satan.
	It's a big problem.
	There's lots and lots of false Christs floating around in those days.
	The devil sent them, that's their argument.
	So what's going on here?
	How could there possibly be all these so many different and competing Jesus movements?
	Was it like this?
	Did Christianity immediately branch off into these wildly diverse sects in some kind of Cambrian explosion?
	Well, here's how most scholars try to explain the situation.
	They say that different communities latched on to different fragments of Jesus, aspects of teachings or things they remembered about him, preserving certain tech traditions and forgetting everything else.
	So does that make any sense at all?
	We've got this explosion of wildly differing groups occurring pretty much right after Jesus' death, certainly by twenty years after his death.
	What happened to all those people who actually were related to Jesus and remembered Jesus and walked around with him?
	What happened to how could they all disagree so violently about even the most basic facts of his life, like did he exist at all?
	Well, let's consider another possibility.
	Maybe it didn't happen like this.
	Maybe it happened like this.
	Perhaps all these diverse religious movements were already in place.
	And in the mid to late first century, their Christs and Lords became coalesced into the figure of Jesus Christ.
	Well, let's take a look.
	But before we do that, I want to ask you something.
	If you had to pick one person most responsible for giving us Christianity, who would you say?
	Paul?
	Paul?
	Anyone else?
	You see Beat's Constantine, I heard that.
	These are all good guesses.
	But I'm gonna vote for this guy.
	That's right.
	It's Alexander the Great, a Greek bisexual imperialist pagan who lived 300 years before.
	I'm getting the the hook sign, so we're gonna have to wrap this up extremely fast.
	But here's the in a nutshell.
	In the Greek Hellenistic world, all these savior gods and goddesses from all these different parts of the empire, from the Greeks to Persians and even Jewish influences, became coalesced into savior gods.
	By the first century, that was the sexy idea in religions.
	All the old pantheons were tired, and the new idea was the mystery face, these new savior gods, personal saviors.
	Wrapping it up here.
	How much how much time do we have, JT?
	You are ten minutes, no.
	Ten minutes.
	Oh, we're damn so much.
	So much all right, that's a cut right to the chase then.
	Right to that chase.
	What is Jesus made of?
	Jesus was made of midrosh.
	He was an allegorical figure cre Midrash, that's Jewish.
	That's Jewish takings of the Old Testament and piecing them together.
	Created by the author of the Gospel of Mark to serve an allegorical picture purpose, just like many other savior gods at the time did.
	Um, and he fully expected his audience to know this, uh, the educated members of his audience to know this.
	Christianity did not start out as some with a single man or a single God.
	It started out in a thousand places all over the world, uh, over hundreds of years out of this rich melting pot.
	All right, and that and that's the end.
	Um I'm seeing if I have uh no, we're gonna wrap that up here.
	I was gonna read from Jesus' puzzle a little bit, but we're at over two hours now.
	Appreciate you guys all sticking with me.
	Let's do a quick little vote here in the chat.
	Give me a uh one if you think uh Christianity is Real and two if you think Christianity is not real.
	One real, two not real.
	I want to see a vote.
	I want people to see because a lot of Christians like to go with the herd that they're they're taught to be sheep and follow their shepherd.
	Oh, all twos.
	I I guess all the Christians already tuned out already.
	They they like to they like to go listen to people that give them comforting lies.
	Wow, all twos.
	There's one one.
	Dave Long Island.
	You're you're the minority, buddy.
	GG Cash, you're another you're a minority too.
	Is Jesus white?
	Pretty cool.
	Hey, I I want them to see.
	I want them to know that there's another way that you know there's a lot of people in alt media, especially talking about Jews that will never do this.
	And I can guarantee you there's people out there that are pushing this whole religious stuff and they don't actually believe it.
	Do you know why?
	Because you can make money doing it.
	Because people automatically have trust in you if you hear your that they're uh they're they're also saved.
	They're a brother in Christ.
	Then they have some I mean, look at Milo.
	Milo just says he's he's uh a Christian and not gay anymore, and he's just invited on all the Christian shows, and he's their new most popular guy.
	You really think Milo's not gay anymore?
	Look at his haircut, still has the gay haircut.
	All right, everyone, appreciate let me make sure I see if we have any, and and I got I got a few more Christian shows.
	I got some more on my mind, and I'm ready to debate too.
	Maybe maybe when some uh some Christians will see some of their questions uh debated by one of their internet gurus, they'll see that uh actually they can't back it up.
	I'm just trying to.
	I know I'm a little harsh, but I'm really trying to, I'm doing this out of love.
	I'm trying to free people.
	I think that you have been ensnared in a Jewish mind prison.
	You've been infected with a with a uh Judeo virus that is is a spell that has hypnotized you.
	It's like by by wizards by prophecy magic.
	And you're taught to be blind, obedient sheep, and it's not a way to live.
	And and I understand this is a bitter pill to swallow.
	This really is the real the real red pill, if you ask me.
	And uh, and that is this is not a popular thing.
	I I need your support.
	A lot of Christians that used to follow me are obviously gonna be angry and uh and gonna tune out right away and and go go, they prefer their comforting lies, and they want to be here that they're special and that they're gonna go to heaven and they're gonna live forever, and that all the evil people that don't believe are gonna burn in hell.
	It's all very comforting for them all.
	The the fear of death, the fear that the the uh it's very alluring to think that you you're chosen and you have a covenant and you're gonna see all of your your family and loved ones and in the afterlife.
	I can see why it's tempting.
	I can see the fear.
	I I suffered the fear.
	I was indoctrinated in the church, raised Christian, and and even when I had questions and I when I was skeptical, I I thought, hmm, do I I really don't believe, but I go, Oh, I'm scared, I'm gonna go to hell.
	It it had the effect on me as well, too.
	It's not easy.
	That's all for the super chats.
	This will be posted on Bit Shoot and Odyssey.
	Please subscribe to D uh uh D Live.
	Obviously, you're here on D Live.
	What am I saying?
	Gab, Telegram, Twitter, no more news.org.
	You guys want to support the channel so I can continue making videos and exposing the the Judeo-Christian temple cults.
	Subscribestar is a great way to do that.
	You know, I've got a little baby girl.
	This is a stressful time, constantly being censored, deplatformed, slandered, attack.
	If you watch my videos, you value my work.
	A couple dollars a month from a few more of you, so I can have just like a uh a base uh uh a base income to keep doing this, and I'll keep making videos, several videos a week.
	Try to get the word out, help me get the word out.
	No more news.org.
	Thank you all for watching, and I will see you guys again.
	Remember, I'm gonna be reading.
	We're gonna be reading uh listening to excerpts from When a Jew rules the world.
	So you can it's the cuckiest book I've ever heard.
	Let's see how this works.
	We'll do a little test right here and see if this works.
	Can you guys hear this?
	Surely you have darkened the eyes of your soul with a darkness uttering it.
	A little quiet.
	I produce now the prophecy of Solomon, which speaks of Christ and announces clearly.
	I'm gonna not be lazy.
	I'm gonna go through all the bookmarks from this book.
	When a Jew rules the world by WorldNet Daily.
	Christian Zionist book.
	We're gonna go through the highlights and I'm gonna give my uh comments.
	All right, and speaking of comments, in the in Odyssey, sign up for Odyssey.
	Please go subscribe to Odyssey.
	Bit shoot censoring people now.
	But uh look at the comments.
	Look at the total lack of reasonable informed responses and in the unhinged attacks.
	Although probably, you know, people are gonna try to intimidate me and peer pressure me to shut up and stop doing this.
	They're gonna attack me and slander me.
	They think that I'm gonna stop.
	You think you you think that somebody that's been exposing Jewish supremacy for years is just gonna back down from you guys?
	Give me your best shot.
	Keep attacking me.
	It gives me pleasure to trigger these lunatics and bring these crazies out and show how how stupid they all are.
	And I'm not talking about every Christian.
	Remember, I have Christian friends.
	It incredibly smart people have fallen for this.
	I'm just speaking my mind.
	I want to hear the responses, and I'm gonna bring you some debates.
	You're gonna if I can find anybody to do it, we'll see.
	Alright, that's all.
	Have a nice night, everyone.

▲