Know More News - Adam Green - Jesus Myth Exposed | Know More News w/ Adam Green

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 12, 2024 - Know More News - Adam Green

01:58:29

Jesus Myth Exposed | Know More News w/ Adam Green

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome, everyone.
	How is everybody doing?
	I am Adam Green.
	This is No More News.
	It is Wednesday, April 10th, 2024.
	And today we are going to be exposing the Jesus myth.
	It's going to be a deep dive, a lot of research.
	You guys are really going to enjoy it.
	This will be a good one to watch several times, to share, to post.
	It'll go in the Jesus deception playlist.
	So everybody help me get this around.
	And let me know in the comments anything you think I got wrong, what you agree with.
	And support the channel so I can continue doing videos like this.
	Here's one of my AI images, recreation of Jesus at the Last Supper.
	Probably I put in as painted by Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo is usually who I do.
	So is the most influential character in the last 2,000 years, did he really exist?
	It's a huge question.
	The number one religion in the last 2,000 years taken over billions of people.
	Several books that I've read over the last few years over and over again that are very compelling and convincing evidence that most people don't know.
	Investigating if Jesus was a real person.
	I'd suggest by David Fitzgerald nailed 10 Christian myths that showed Jesus never existed at all.
	We're going to play some clips from that today showing how Jesus is, the Jesus narrative is fabricated from prophecy, Old Testament.
	Also, his book is follow-up Jesus Mything in Action, Volume 1.
	Highly recommend.
	Most of that research actually comes from this book on the historicity of Jesus, why we might have reason for doubt.
	He also has Jesus in outer space.
	It's the cliff notes of this over 20-hour audiobook, 800-page book.
	He also has the proving Jesus and not, oh, I'm sorry, proving history and not the impossible faith.
	Another important one about the origins of Christianity.
	David Scurbina's The Jesus hoax also helps give a fuller picture on the overall agenda of not just that Jesus is a myth, but who invented him and why, which we will get into today as well.
	I'm writing a book.
	It's almost done editing the Jesus deception.
	That'll be out soon.
	It'll include a lot of the stuff we're covering here today.
	I want to start now with a short segment of on the historicity of Jesus, how Dr. Carrier explains how the whole Jesus narrative can be read out of a close reading of scripture of the Old Testament, just from several books.
	Isaiah, Zachariah, Daniel, Wisdom of Solomon, Song of Solomon, the Psalms.
	And from this clip, I basically made this meme here that I'll be going over while he's talking.
	This one, the Jesus Midrash.
	We'll be reviewing that as well while we play it, trying to keep up.
	So here we go.
	Please listen closely.
	The fundamental features of the gospel story of Jesus can be read out of the Jewish scriptures.
	The influence of the Old Testament on the New Testament has been much written on.
	But here I mean to say that this fact, in conjunction with the evidence of previous elements, for example, the pre-Christian Pesher literature, Christian claims to have found hidden information in the scriptures, and so on, makes it plausible to ask whether the gospel was actually discovered and learned from the scriptures, rather than the scriptures being consulted after the fact as a merely defensive reinforcement for key claims Christians were making, supposedly on other grounds.
	So important.
	This whole narrative was inspired from the scriptures, not there was some real event and they had to search the scriptures after the fact.
	We're going to show Bart Ehrman, the top historicist scholar, verse Daniel Boyeran and Richard Carrier explaining why he's wrong.
	But this is so important.
	I got to back it up again one more time and review.
	He claims to have found hidden information in the scriptures.
	They were searching.
	It's so clear in Paul's letters and what they were doing in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	This midrashic pesher searching scriptures for God's hidden mysteries that could be revealed with the right interpretation and the right connections of similar themes in different passages.
	It's a fanfiction construct and so on.
	Makes it plausible to ask whether the gospel was actually discovered and learned from the scriptures, rather than the scriptures being consulted after the fact as a merely defensive reinforcement for key claims Christians were making, supposedly on other grounds.
	For this point, it's enough to illustrate how easy it would have been to do this, even beyond what was already shown in Element 6.
	As I've already noted, the wisdom of Solomon declares that the wicked will, quote, condemn to a shameful death, end quote, the holiest man of God, which in the first century would entail a crucifixion in contrast to an honorable death like decapitation, because they are blinded by their wickedness and do not know the secret purposes of God.
	Wisdom 2 verses 20 to 22.
	Just compare 1 Corinthians 2 verses 7 to 9.
	This righteous man they kill will be quote unquote the son of God, wisdom 2 verse 18, who criticizes the current religious order and promotes strange teachings.
	Wisdom 2 verses 12 to 16.
	Those who kill him will scorn and reject him and mock him during his torture and execution, saying, surely God will come to rescue him, which, to an interpreter looking for hidden connections, links this text with the same man in Psalms 22, verses 7 to 8, which Psalm is heavenly drawn upon to construct the crucifixion scene in Mark 15.
	Okay.
	This is the first time you heard all that.
	It probably went in one ear and out the other, but it's so important.
	Let me go back and show this.
	He's reading from the wisdom of Solomon, which was clearly an ancient Jewish book that they were looking to toward secrets about their Messiah, toward revelations about what their Messiah would be like.
	And it is Wisdom of Solomon.
	Read closely Wisdom of Solomon now.
	Because he is not for our turn.
	He is clean contrary to our doings.
	He upbraideth us with our offending the law.
	Like Jesus got mad at them for the oral law offending the law.
	He called himself the child of the Lord from Wisdom of Solomon.
	Well, just like Jesus did, he maketh the boast that God is his father.
	For his life is not like other men's.
	His ways are of another fashion.
	This is how they fashion the Jesus character from verses like this.
	And then they taunt him.
	They say, let us see if his words be true and let us prove what shall happen at the end of him.
	Like they taunted Jesus to come down from the cross and save himself.
	For if the just man be the son of God, he will help him and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.
	So that is the verse that he, Carrier said, is in, I think, Corinthians.
	They say the same thing.
	It's in the gospels.
	They taunt him to come down.
	And that also connects, he said it connected Psalms 22.
	All who see me mock me.
	They hurl insults, shaking their heads.
	He trusts in the Lord, they say.
	Let the Lord rescue him.
	Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.
	So here what Carrier said, it connects Psalm 22, another very messianic psalm that says, also has they pierced my hands and feet.
	And my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
	Another psalm that they heavily quote mined to create the Jesus passion narrative.
	All they see me laugh me to scorn.
	A worm, no man, a reproach of men, despised of the people by his people.
	And also Psalms 22.
	This is what it's about.
	All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations, the Goyam, shall worship before thee.
	So all of these elements that they pulled from Psalm 22, the messianic Messiah that's supposedly interpreted to be about Jesus.
	For the kingdom is the Lord's, and he is the governor among the goim.
	All the goyem shall worship before thee.
	That was the whole plan.
	Straight from Psalms 22, the piercing of the feet.
	Clearly, that this is sourcing and interpreted as to be about Jesus.
	So back to wisdom of Solomon 2.
	I think this is chapter 2.
	Let us see if his words be true.
	If he's the son of God, deliver him from the hand of the enemies.
	The same taunting.
	What did Carrier say it was to Corinthians?
	No, we'll back it up.
	Now I gave you a little context.
	You can hear it again.
	7 to 9.
	This righteous man made an honorable death like decapitation because they are blinded by their wickedness and do not know the secret purposes of God.
	Wisdom 2 verses 20 to 22.
	Okay, we'll go back and do a little more wisdom of Solomon because that's important too.
	That's another aspect of getting the Jews to not believe in their Messiah.
	It's where they came up with the idea.
	Let us know his meekness and his patience.
	Let us condemn him with the shameful death.
	And the most shameful death was crucifixion at the time.
	Such things they did imagine and were deceived.
	So the Jews were deceived for their own wickedness hath blinded them.
	Another theme that the early Christians had, that this was not supposed to be for the Jews.
	Prophetically, from scripture, it was for the Gentiles.
	As for the mysteries of God, they knew them not.
	The Jews, they didn't understand that they needed to be deceived and blinded for this to go to the Gentiles and theologically conquer the Gentiles.
	Neither hoped.
	Okay, that's.
	And then here's wisdom of Solomon 5 now, I believe, 5-1.
	Then shall the righteous man stand in great boldness before the face of such as have afflicted him.
	So the death and resurrection from wisdom of Solomon, this messianic character that they connect to Isaiah 53 and Daniel and Zechariah.
	And it says if he died, but then he stands in great boldness, that means he's resurrected.
	That's how they would interpret that.
	Also, you can interpret the death and resurrection from Isaiah 53 as well.
	When they see it, they shall be troubled with terrible fear and shall be amazed at the strangeness of his salvation.
	And they repented and groaning for anguish of spirit say within themselves, this was he whom we had sometimes in derision.
	They're going to say, it was us who didn't like Jesus.
	We fools accounted his life madness and his end to be without honor.
	The Jews, this was interpreted by early Jewish Christians to mean about the Jews speaking about Jesus.
	How is he numbered among the children of God and his lot is among the saints?
	Another Jesus association.
	Therefore, we have erred from the way of the truth and the light of righteousness hath not shined unto us and the Son of righteousness rose not upon us.
	Talking about the Jews for erring from the way of truth of Jesus.
	So that's wisdom of Solomon.
	No doubt about it.
	They connected this into their midrash, considered it a divine prophetic scripture and influenced the story of Jesus.
	Just compare 1 Corinthians 2 verses 7 to 9.
	1 Corinthians 2, 7 to 9.
	Note, we declare God's wisdom a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory.
	See, they thought that there was hidden mysteries about their Messiah in the scriptures, and that's where they invented him.
	That's where they saw him in the scriptures.
	And then in dreams or Kabbalistic visions or ascension experiences, claim that they had seen him and met with him.
	They would not have, okay.
	It was hidden, and the God destined for our glory before time began.
	None of the rulers of this age, in the Greek, it's archons of this Aeon, not the Romans, not the Jews.
	Paul doesn't identify as killing Jesus.
	For if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of our glory.
	However, it is written, what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived, the things God has prepared for those who love him.
	So in other words, nobody had seen or heard or even thought of Jesus could be read out of the scriptures as they did.
	And that's just citing Isaiah 64.
	This righteous man they kill will be, quote unquote, the son of God, wisdom 2 verse 18, who criticizes the current religious order and promotes strange teachings.
	Wisdom 2 verses 12 to 16.
	Those who kill him will scorn and reject him and mock him during his torture and execution, saying, Surely God will come to rescue him, which, to an interpreter looking for hidden connections, links this text with the same man in Psalms 22, verses 7 to 8, which Psalm is heavenly drawn upon to construct the crucifixion scene in Mark 15.
	And this righteous man will be killed, but then restored to life and exalted by God to stand again and judge those who killed him in wisdom 5.
	5-1.
	I demonstrated the links some Jews had likely made between the Messiah killed in Daniel 9 and the righteous servant killed in Isaiah 52 and 53.
	Daniel 9, Isaiah 53.
	Daniel 9, Isaiah 53.
	Ties into that network.
	Also Psalm 22, which gives us the three-day cycle.
	First, Psalm 22, execution and mockery, verse 16, even implying crucifixion specifically, especially in variants known at Qumran.
	Piercing my hands and feet in Isaiah.
	Sorry, Psalms 22.
	See what they're doing?
	They have similar passages and they're connecting them all together and thinking that they're finding God's hidden mysteries in the scriptures.
	It's known as Midrash and then creating a pesher from the Midrash.
	Psalm 23, burial and sojourn among the dead.
	That's the funeral psalm.
	And then Psalm 24, ascension and exaltation, quote unquote, on the first day of the week, where the very same unusual phrasing found in Mark 16, verse 1 is found in Psalms 24, verse 1 in the Septuagint.
	Thus, Mark is clearly quoting and therefore alluding to that Psalm, which together gives us the entire gospel spelled out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, verses 3 to 4.
	Tying all of this into Isaiah is what gives us the strongest evidence of this.
	The particular and peculiar concept of this Messiah dying for our sins, which notion is only reinforced by linking us to Daniel 9, verse 24, which would then imply the same thing.
	The relevant material in his life.
	Tying all of this into Isaiah is what gives us the strongest evidence of this.
	The particular and peculiar concept of this Messiah dying for our sins, which notion is only reinforced by linking us to Daniel 9, verse 24, which would then imply the same thing.
	Daniel 9, 24 with Isaiah 52 and 53.
	Where's 53?
	Here it is.
	Isaiah 53, verse 2.
	No beauty, or so the Jews saying no beauty or majesty to attract us to him.
	Nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
	They didn't desire the suffering Messiah idea.
	But they couldn't create a myth of a worldly victorious military Messiah.
	He was despised and rejected by mankind.
	So they believe their Messiah.
	If this was interpreted as messianic, which we're going to get into next, the conflict, the disagreement between Bart Ehrman, Historicis, and Richard Carrier, mythicist, and Talmudic expert Daniel Boyerin.
	Despise and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, the suffering servant, and familiar with pain, like one from whom people hide their faces.
	He was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
	But he took our pain, bore our suffering.
	We considered him punished by God, stricken and afflicted.
	But he was pierced, and they do use pierced in the Dead Sea Scroll, Isaiah has pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities.
	That iniquities there connects to iniquities in Zechariah, iniquities in atonement and sin in Daniel as well.
	Another connection they would all make.
	By his wounds we were healed.
	And then just the whole story of Jesus is just pulled straight from Isaiah 53.
	That's where they created it from, by connecting all of these sins.
	For he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors, died as a scapegoat sin, will justify the many, bear their iniquities, poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, how they put him with the two criminals on the cross.
	He had done no violence, no deceit in his mouth.
	He was the sinless, no blemish, sacrificial lamb.
	Though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin through his suffering.
	The relevant material in Isaiah describes an itinerant preacher whose beautiful feet walk the land, bringing the gospel and announcing salvation.
	Isaiah 52, verse 7.
	This preacher, God will reveal to all nations, but possibly only through an elect few.
	Isaiah 52, verse 10, using apocalypse, the term for revelation.
	That he is revealed only to an elect few and then reported to others is implied in Isaiah 53 verse 1, just as Clement of Rome appears to have thought of Jesus, as we'll see in chapter 8.
	This preacher is God's servant, God's child in the Septuagint, who will deal wisely and be exalted and raised up very high.
	Isaiah 52 verse 13.
	Even though he will be despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, 53 verse 3.
	In fact, he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.
	In the Septuagint, he bears our sins and suffers for us.
	And though we thought he was being punished by God, 53 verse 4, in fact, he was wounded for our sins.
	He was bruised for our iniquities, or even pierced for our iniquities in some pre-Christian manuscripts, as I noted in Element 9.
	Indeed, with his stripes we are healed, 53, verse 5, because the Lord gave him up for our sins, 53, verse 6.
	The word here is paradidy in the Septuagint, identical to the word often translated as he was betrayed in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 23, even though referring to exactly the same event.
	It means handed over.
	And likewise, this is the same word used for that event throughout the Gospels, as we'll see in chapter 11.
	Explicitly, he is killed even though innocent and killed specifically because of the sins of God's people, 53 verses 8 to 9.
	For God, quote, shall make his life an offering for sin, end quote, 53, verse 10, because he bears their sins, 53, verse 11.
	And this servant will then be exalted by God, and his days prolonged, and also, in reward, he shall be shown the light of understanding, receive an inheritance, and divide all spoils with the mighty.
	Quote, because he poured out his life unto death and was numbered with the transgressors, yet bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors, end quote.
	53 verses 11 to 12.
	That, a later second temple Jew would readily take to mean he would be resurrected, as the only obvious way you can die, yet be rewarded for this death with the prolonging of your days and receiving wisdom and inheritance and spoils, is to be made alive again.
	All this just from Isaiah 52 to 53.
	Just from that.
	You see, guys, God doesn't show his power through the chosen people by sending somebody to earth to fulfill all of these random lines from scripture.
	They created the whole story from scripture.
	They fanfiction fabricated it from reading all these scriptures as if they're hidden mysteries from God.
	Is this not obvious?
	All of this is not itself a proof that Christians did find every key element of their gospel by scouring scripture for secret messages, producing their gospel like a pesher, with the assistance from revelations and ecstatic inspiration.
	But the evidence I've surveyed so far is sufficient to establish that they could have.
	The usual claim, of course, is that Christians sought out Isaiah 53 after the fact.
	And all scholars agree it was a key text employed by Christians as a prophecy of their Christ and not as inspiration.
	In other words, finding the passage first and then concocting a savior to match.
	But we don't really know it was the one and not the other.
	They found the passages first and concocted a story to match.
	That's the obvious explanation for this.
	Please.
	Anybody saying, no, it had to all happen, they could have never fabricated it from scripture.
	They're lying.
	They're lying.
	That's the simple explanation.
	Look at the rest of Isaiah 52.
	So 52 and 57, about the suffering servant.
	Isaiah 52 says, the Lord had made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.
	So that's the role of what Jesus is supposed to do.
	He will bring good tidings, tidings of good, the publish of salvation that said to Zion, your God reigneth.
	That's what the role of the Messiah is about to do supposed to do.
	Isaiah 52, 13 to 15, behold, my servant, it's clear they interpreted anything about servant to be the Messiah, shall deal prudently.
	And the rabbis will complain and say, oh, well, the Servant means Israel.
	It means Israel.
	It could have a dual meaning, or it was originally meaning Israel, and they just reinterpreted it to mean the Messiah.
	They took the liberties to do that.
	My servant, so Jesus shall deal prudently.
	He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high.
	So shall he sprinkle many nations.
	The king shall shut their mouths at him.
	For that which had not been told them, shall they see, and which they had not heard shall they consider.
	That's playing on the verse that it says the reverse of that, which says that the Jews wouldn't hear him, but the Gentiles would.
	There's several verses like that.
	But that's the role of the servant, again, to be extolled and to have the king shut their mouth at him, or to conquer the kings of the Gentiles.
	Prior to any specific evidence, either way, the one is as likely as the other.
	The ease with which we can produce the Christian gospel solely by constructing a messianic pesher out of the Old Testament scriptures and other scriptures that Christians used is therefore something we must include in our background knowledge.
	Okay, just a short little thing, and he gets into way more proof.
	Historicity of Jesus there.
	I could go way deeper too into this whole midrash here.
	Let's go a little deeper.
	I wanted to.
	This is important.
	So Daniel 2:4:4.
	The kingdom of Jesus or the Messiah will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.
	That's what they want in the apocalyptic Daniel prophecies.
	Daniel 7, in my vision at night I looked, and therefore before me was one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven.
	Jesus in Mark references himself to this like a dozen times.
	He approached the ancient of days.
	That's the higher God, the father of God, to the son of man, the lesser God, but still two thrones, and was led into this presence.
	He was given authority, glory, and sovereign power.
	All nations and peoples of every language worshipped him.
	That's the whole purpose of the Messiah that they created in Jesus.
	He will speak against.
	Did I read this already?
	Glory?
	All nations and people, every language worshipped him.
	Dominion over the world.
	That's what they're about.
	He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people like Jesus oppressed the Jews and try to change the set times and the laws.
	How they changed the Hebrew calendar and said, created a Jewish sect that said, don't follow the commandments and the laws of the Torah, Christianity.
	The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and a half.
	They believe that this is where early Christians got their dead for three days.
	Jesus' resurrection after three days, a time, if this is interpreted as days, a time, a day, a day, and half a day, or after three days.
	The sovereignty, power, and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High.
	So all of the kingdoms of the world will be handed over to the Jews in the end times.
	His kingdom, the Moshiach's kingdom, will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.
	Like Jesus has largely conquered the Western world, and starting with Rome.
	And then Daniel 9, which connects to this, Son of Man, midrashically, reconciliation for iniquity and end of sins after the prophetic 70 weeks.
	Seal up the vision of prophecy and to anoint, as in Moshiach, anointing, the most holy.
	And then after a time, the Messiah will be cut off or dies.
	The people of the prince, Rome, that shall come and destroy the city in the sanctuary.
	Rome, the emperor, will come and destroy the temple after the Messiah dies.
	And this will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, no more temple sacrifice.
	After the sanctuary of the city in Jerusalem, the temple in Jerusalem is destroyed, and it will be desolate.
	And with this son of man from Daniel, I need to go to all the prophecies of Enoch because Enoch talks a whole lot.
	Enoch, which most of Enoch was found at the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	This was an early Christian, early Jewish Christian text, the book of Enoch.
	The parables of Enoch has all of this stuff about the Son of Man conquering all of the nations and the Gentiles.
	It's the common theme throughout it.
	I'm going to skip that for now because I don't have it up and I have so much stuff to cover.
	But so the Messiah that's cut off and has an atonement for sins and has dominion over the world was connected to the suffering Messiah of Isaiah 53.
	And that all connects to Zechariah 3, where it says, I will bring my servant, like the servant in Isaiah, is named Joshua, the high priest, like Yeshua.
	The stone that I have laid before Yeshua, the stone, Jesus is related to the stone, the cornerstone.
	I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day, another removing of the iniquity, like Yom Kippur, like Isaiah 53.
	And then Zechariah 6 says, take silver and gold and make crowns and set them upon the head, a crown upon the head of Joshua, Yeshua, the high priest, like Jesus as the high priest Melchizedek in heaven.
	The Lord of hosts saying, Behold, the man whose name is the branch, another messianic term, the branch of David, the root of Jesse.
	So anything branch also was interpreted to mean speaking about the Messiah or Jesus.
	The branch shall grow out of this place and build the temple of the Lord.
	He shall build the temple of the Lord.
	He shall bear the glory and shall sit and rule upon his throne and shall be a priest upon his throne.
	And counsel peace shall be, counsel of peace shall be between them both.
	And that's in the end times of Moshiach ben David.
	Zechariah 12 now, 12, 10.
	All of these Zechariahs, they're searching Zechariah, quote mining it for secrets of their Messiah and their redemption.
	And we have Zechariah 12, 10.
	They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, like connecting into the pierced in Isaiah 53, the pierced in Psalms 22.
	They shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son, only son archetype, and shall be in bitterness for him as one that is in bitterness for the firstborn.
	And the Talmud even later interprets this verse about the one who is pierced to be about Moshiach Ben Joseph.
	Sorry, not the Talmud, the Zohar.
	And then Zechariah 9 is where it says, he shall speak peace unto the heathen.
	That's what they thought Jesus was supposed to do.
	And his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from river even to the ends of the earth.
	So the Messiah is going to speak peace to the heathen and rule over the whole earth, which was what they wanted their Jesus to.
	They interpret all this about Jesus.
	Zechariah 9, also, it's where they get that Jesus' triumphal entry was lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
	They got that part for the Jesus story.
	From Zechariah 11, they get the 30 pieces of silver that is thrown it to the potter.
	That's the 30 pieces of silver for Judas betraying Jesus.
	Zechariah 8.
	All languages of the Goyam even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.
	Rabbis believe that's supposed to happen at the end times with their Messiah, but this ultimately was partly largely fulfilled with the Jesus myth.
	Many nations now grab onto a Jew and say, We heard God is with you, or you were God.
	Okay, let's see, where else could we go?
	Isaiah 50, they got the, I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheek to those who pulled out my beard.
	I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting, all things in the passion narrative of Jesus.
	They got the virgin from Isaiah 14.
	We'll cover that one later.
	Okay, that's about all of them in this midrash.
	Wisdom of Solomon, Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah.
	Psalms 118, we miss these.
	Psalms 22 has the, they pierced my hands and feet, like the pierced in Isaiah 53 and the pierced in Zechariah 12, 10.
	Oh, they would never invent a crucified Messiah.
	They would if they saw that he's the Messiah is supposed to be pierced everywhere.
	Psalm 118, the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.
	Another one that they wrote about Jesus, that he is to be rejected, the Messiah is rejected, but then will become the cornerstone in the end.
	Okay, now let's move on to a small segment from David Fitzgerald's mything in action.
	Every aspect of the Gospels is symbolic myth derived from the Old Testament.
	Bifurcatio for 25 says, why should a nation who has, quote, all people are created equal in their founding documents have to live among a people who believe that they are chosen by God and are better than others?
	I know it is antithetical to the idea that they go, oh, we're all the children of God, but you believe you're actually chosen by God.
	How do they get off calling anybody supremacist is beyond me.
	All right, here, David Fitzgerald mything in action.
	Check this out.
	The problems of the passion of the Christ.
	Jesus' execution is perhaps the only event of his life that nearly all biblical scholars seem to feel confident actually occurred.
	And yet, when we look at the details of the passion story, his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, ridding the temple of the moneylenders, his arrest, trial, execution, and resurrection, and even in small, seemingly incidental, mundane details, we find the same situation as we do for his miracle stories.
	The stories filled with historical difficulties that make it difficult, if not impossible, to accept at face value.
	But make perfect sense as allegories crafted from Old Testament passages.
	The difficulties accumulate further as each new gospel makes additions, subtractions, allegories constructed from Old Testament passages known as Midrash, Midrashic exegesis.
	It was normal in Judaism at that time.
	And alterations to Mark's story.
	But allegory is a consistent presence inundating all four gospels.
	In fact, it runs through all the non-canonical Christian gospels in Acts as well.
	Chapters 11 through 16, over a quarter of Mark's gospel, are dedicated to the final week of his life and his passion story.
	But as Randall Helms and others have demonstrated, the episodes of that passion story have been structured around a series of Old Testament verses from such books as Zechariah, Isaiah, Jonah, and the Psalms.
	Carefully constructed typological fiction.
	Happenings according to the scriptures.
	Mark begins his passion story with Jesus' arrival at the Mount of Olives, East of Jerusalem.
	We know from Josephus that many Jews of the time interpreted Zechariah 14, 4, which says, on that day his feet will stand upon the Mount of Olives, to mean that the coming of the Messiah would commence there.
	First, Jesus sends two disciples ahead into Bethany, where he says they will find a colt that has never been ridden.
	He adds, if anyone asks why they are untying the colt, to tell them the Lord needs it, and they'll have no problem making off with it.
	Naturally, all this comes to pass without a hitch.
	And Jesus rides the never-ridden, unbroken, untrained colt just fine into Jerusalem, where he's greeted by many who spread garments and palm branches before him and acclaim him with cries of adoration and praise.
	Why all the improbable bother just to obtain an unridden colt?
	That plot point is dictated by the verse in Zechariah.
	Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion.
	Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem.
	Lo, your king comes to you.
	Triumphant and victorious is he, humble in riding on a donkey, a colt, a foal of a donkey.
	Zechariah 9, 9.
	Matthew goes even further in his version.
	He is so literal-minded that when he retells the story, he goes back to the source material and decides that when Zechariah said the king would come riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey, the prophet wasn't being poetic.
	To Matthew, that meant two riding animals, a donkey and a colt, the foal of a donkey.
	So his Jesus instructs the disciples to go look for a donkey and her foal, and without explaining how this is possible without looking like a rodeo act, has Jesus mount and ride both.
	The joyful crowd that welcomes Jesus into Jerusalem get their lines from Hebrew scriptures as well.
	Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord and Hosanna in the highest are direct quotes from the Septuagint, as are their shouts of Hosanna.
	Every part of it, Hosanna, blessed in the name of the Lord, all the things in this story all come from scripture.
	And this isn't all Jesus walking in.
	It literally says Jesus walks in and goes, and to fulfill it, Jesus said, go and do this.
	Like he's just trying to check off all these random boxes.
	It's funny how the NIV of Zechariah 9, 9, the coming of Zion's king.
	It's Zion's king, Christians.
	Do you get that?
	Zion's king coming in on the donkey.
	And then the second time, it's coming in the clouds of heaven.
	In chapter 5, Krabby Jesus taking divine revenge on a poor fig tree for having no Faithon says, can we take a moment to appreciate the Jews' master plan?
	question mark.
	First step, spend thousands of years taking over the world theologically.
	Step two, make everyone hate them, hate them for the religious reasons that they gave them.
	And step three, Moshiach.
	Pretty much, that is to break it down to only three steps.
	That's pretty much that's what happened.
	Funny, thank you.
	No figs out of season scarcely makes sense even for a mere mortal Jesus, let alone for a perfect son of God.
	But once again, as allegory, in this case, for the rejection of the temple sacrifice system, it okay, not prophecy fulfilled, but myth derived from scripture.
	His trial account from that in the book Gospel Fictions, Randall Helms has demonstrated that Mark has constructed his trial account from Old Testament Septuagint.
	Another good book I recommend.
	The chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus in order to kill him, but they found none.
	Mark 14, 55.
	Then the governors and the satraps sought to find occasion against Daniel in connection with the kingdom, but they found against him no occasion.
	Daniel 6:4.
	So this is a trip.
	All of the dialogue in Jesus' trial is ripped straight from Daniel.
	Listen to this again.
	Sought to find occasion against Daniel in connection with the kingdom, but they found against him no occasion.
	Daniel 6:4.
	For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree.
	Some, having stood up, gave false testimony against him.
	Mark 14, 56 through 57.
	Unjust witnesses standing up asked me.
	Psalms 34, 11 and 35, 11.
	Then the high priest, standing up in the midst, asked Jesus, Mark 14, 60.
	Unjust witnesses have stood up against me, and injustice has lied.
	The unjust witnesses, lying witnesses.
	26, 12 and 27, 12.
	Psalms 26, 12.
	For the purposes of this audiobook, I have not included the Greek in these passages above, which make the correspondence between them much more obvious.
	Not all the scriptural inspiration.
	So it's word for word, verbatim taken from the Septuagint, showing that this whole Jesus trial is quote mine from the Septuagint, from the Psalms, from Isaiah, and from Daniel, and worked as well as others.
	The suffering servant passage in Isaiah became popular with early Christians looking for signs of their Messiah in the ancient Hebrew scriptures.
	Isaiah 53 became popular for Jews looking for signs of their Messiah.
	That's how it went down.
	Mark was no exception.
	One of the verses he wanted to include when he was putting together his story was Isaiah 53, 7.
	He did not open his mouth, which in Mark becomes, but he was silent and did not answer.
	Mark 14, 61.
	However, Mark had more for Jesus to say.
	This dilemma caused problems for all four evangelists who wanted to have their silence and speak it too.
	So Jesus' silence turns out to be very short-lived.
	In fact, the very next verse, he opens his mouth again, and then all hell breaks loose.
	Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, have you no answer?
	What is it that they testify against you?
	But he was silent and did not answer.
	Again, the high priest asked him, Are you the Messiah, the son of the blessed one?
	Jesus said, I am.
	And you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of the power and coming with the clouds of heaven.
	Of course, I am.
	Daniel 7:13.
	It's name-dropping Mark himself, just as John has Jesus do in his gospel.
	Truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.
	John 8:58.
	And the Son of Man coming with the clouds is referring to the prophecy of the coming of the Son of Man as cosmic judge in Daniel 7, 13 to 14, and of sitting at the right hand of the Lord from Psalms 110, verse 1.
	We'll go there next.
	Psalm 110.
	So Jesus name drops Daniel 7.
	The Jesus figure in Mark symbolizes this, these prophecies.
	Okay, Daniel 7, Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, was given authority, glory, and sovereign power.
	All nations, all Goyim and peoples of every language worshipped him.
	That's the goal of their fictional Jesus, to theologically conquer all of the world and have them worship the Jewish Messiah.
	That was the whole goal of Christianity from the start.
	And then also he said Psalms 110, right?
	Jesus name-drops that he's sitting at the right hand there.
	Psalms 110, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies, the enemies of the Jews, the Moshiach's footstool.
	Moshiach's ruling over and making the footstool of the Christian world right now, who was the ancient enemies of Rome.
	The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion.
	Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
	That's the Messiah.
	The rod is going to rule in Rome, their enemy at the time.
	Christianity, the Messiah Jesus, was meant to rule in the land of the Jewish enemies in Rome, in Edom.
	Thou art priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
	Jesus is the Melchizedek Messiah in the Hebrews.
	The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
	The Messiah, Jesus, is meant to conquer the kings of the world, the Gentile kings.
	Thank you, chief, for the five.
	What is that, a tree?
	He shall, the Messiah, Jesus, from Psalms 110 interpreted, he shall judge among the heathen.
	He shall fill the places with dead bodies.
	He shall wound the heads over many countries.
	And that's when he returns.
	That'll end up happening.
	Okay.
	Then in the book, Gospel Fictions.
	Oops.
	All right, here we go.
	No, we read that one.
	Now here's Carrier again describing Midrash and how it's fake prophecy fulfillment.
	About like the servant on Pesher logic.
	So we know this from Quran.
	We know from many other examples.
	Jews were no longer interpreting the Old Testament in the way it was originally intended.
	So just give up on trying to get to the original intention.
	So you take like Isaiah 52 and 53.
	That is self-evidently, and it's been shown in lots of different literary analysis and stuff.
	When that was written, that was about like the servant is Judea.
	It's actually a metaphor.
	And the Messiah, the Savior, is Cyrus.
	And it's a whole passage about how Cyrus is God's chosen redeemer of Israel because he allowed the Jews to go back to Judea, right?
	So that's what it was originally about.
	It had nothing to do with Messiahs.
	It was not a prophecy of the future.
	It was an actual sort of propagandistic statement of gratitude and honor for an actual historical thing that was happening at the time that text was written or near the time when the text was written.
	Now, after that, forget it.
	Jews are never interpreting it that way again.
	They're seeing it as some sort of mystical secret message for the future.
	So they're reinterpreting it constantly to mean different things.
	Midrash is reinterpreting stuff, ignoring the original context and just using all of it as material, prophetic material that they can say is about Jesus.
	And there are debates over this.
	So we have debates in the Talmud, for example, where there are rabbis saying, no, that's a passage about Cyrus.
	And then you have rabbis saying, no, it's a passage about the Messiah and about the future Messiah.
	So you have, you have these arguments.
	So we know they were interpreting these passages in different ways.
	And you look at the pastors of Qumran, they're getting wildly strange interpretations out of the Bible.
	So you can just throw away any notion of trying to get back to the original meaning of the text.
	The early Christians were not basing their religion on the original meaning of the Old Testament.
	They're seeing like secret messages in they're looking at some sort of weird Bible code.
	They're getting completely different intentions.
	Secret messages, Bible code out of the text than were originally intended to be there.
	So that's how they're looking at it.
	They're looking at the same way as the Qumranites did through their pescher logic.
	So you have to look at how are they reinterpreting the text, which is not going to be at all in alignment with the original historical meaning of any of the biblical texts.
	And I know you were going to ask about one of these, which is Isaiah 53, 52 and 53.
	They often, you're going to ask about it whether the idea that Christians are the first to turn that into a messianic text.
	And that's not true.
	We have actual definite evidence of Jews before Christianity around the same time already seeing that text as Messianic.
	And then when you look in the Talmud, not only are they seeing it as Messianic, the Talmudic rabbis, standard mainstream Talmudic rabbis, are seeing it as predicting the death and resurrection of the Messiah.
	So with no controversy, no one's even arguing it, right?
	It's not like, oh, how dare you suggest that?
	No, they just say it.
	And it says, oh, yeah, of course, right?
	It's just taken for granted that that's the case.
	So the idea that the Jews would never see this as a Messianic text is completely false.
	They were totally seeing it as a Messianic text.
	They were totally seeing Isaiah 53 as a messianic text before Christianity.
	That's what Daniel Boyeran says too.
	On Pesher Logic.
	Okay, now this is the history channel.
	This is the establishment official story, official consensus of Jesus and how Christianity started.
	The disciples' hopes were completely.
	This is Bart Ehrman.
	He was a real person.
	He had a following.
	He was crucified by the Romans.
	He never claimed to be Messiah.
	He was Jewish and Torah observant.
	Sorry, he never claimed to be God.
	So he's Noahide-compliant, anti-Roman, Jewish Jesus.
	That's what they're promoting, the official story.
	Not that he's a myth invented to theologically conquer the nations.
	The disciples' hopes were completely destroyed by the crucifixion of Jesus.
	But then some of them claimed they saw Jesus alive again.
	And stories started floating around that he, in fact, had been raised from the dead.
	This reconfirmed for the disciples what they previously had thought.
	No, or they could have been reading the scriptures very closely and saw that it looked like the Messiah would die, be rejected, and then be raised for the dead, then be exalted.
	Didn't actually have to happen.
	They were already searching the scriptures we know for hidden mysteries.
	So they could have discovered that it doesn't, it's not.
	Ehrman argues that Jesus had to have been crucified.
	Otherwise, they would have never searched the scriptures to see a crucified Messiah.
	Jesus must be the one favored by God.
	He's coming back from heaven and he's going to set up the kingdom here on earth.
	I do think it's a historical fact that at least a few of Jesus' disciples believe that they saw Jesus alive after his death.
	Maybe they saw a shadow on a wall and they decided this is Jesus in some other form.
	Whatever they saw, that was such a shock to their system that they basically completely changed their view of Jesus.
	Now he was no longer just a crucified prophet.
	And that's the beginning of Christianity.
	That's the history channel version of Christianity now.
	Now, that was Bart Ehrman in this.
	I've read his book, The Historical Jesus.
	We're going to play some back and forth clips of where his arguments are incorrect there.
	But people, this is, it's like a fallacy.
	Even Bart Ehrman says they go, Bart Ehrman's a former Christian and now claims agnostic atheist.
	But he was trained, as you can see here, we'll play this.
	Top Jesus historicis.
	It's like the buck stocks stops with him.
	And if he doesn't say it, it's like he's the high priest and whatever he says.
	Jesus isn't a myth until Bart Ehrman says it's a myth or something.
	Look at where he got his education.
	Fundamentalist Christian training spent 12 years at religious schools where he never stepped foot in a secular classroom.
	And I said he's still a historical Jesus apologist just by education and the fact that he's made, had like a 20, 30 year career writing books on what the historical Jesus, who the historical Jesus was.
	Fundamentalist upbringing.
	He was also a Christian evangelical into his adult life.
	Were there any downsides to educational experiences as a fundamentalist?
	So there are a lot of difficulties with my fundamentalist upbringing and my Christian training.
	So altogether, my higher education was 12 years.
	And in all those 12 years, I never set foot in a secular classroom.
	The first time I ever entered a secular higher education classroom was the day I started to teach at Rutgers University.
	All of his 12 years of higher learning education was at Christian schools training him to be a Christian apologist, essentially.
	Wow.
	The big downside related to that is at Moody, we had classes on English.
	Moody Bible Institute.
	We had classes in history, but they were history of the church.
	We had classes on theology, but not philosophy.
	And so, like, I was so uneducated.
	And so, basically, I'm self-taught in almost all the areas that I'm really interested in.
	Were there any downsides?
	Self-taught.
	This last semester.
	I have students in my classes this last semester who went to Christian high schools who were told, don't take classes with Bart Ehrman because his goal is to deconvert you.
	I'm not trying to deconvert anybody, and I'm not teaching alternative.
	See, he's already getting pushed back just because he's critical of some things in Christianity.
	He says they're not real.
	Imagine how few people at these schools, these religious classes would be wanting to take his class if he said Jesus wasn't real or if that he was wrong about his decades worth of Jesus research.
	Alternative religion.
	I'm teaching history, and the historical views that I teach are by and large the ones I learned at Princeton Theological Seminary training to be a minister.
	And so these are not anti-Christian views, but people think that if you're an atheist and you say them, that they're anti-Christian.
	I have students in my classes.
	Derek from one of the biggest biblical studies YouTube channels says Bart Ehrman's got some issues.
	And the reason I'm focusing on Bart Ehrman is because he is the figurehead and almost like the gatekeeper I see as keeping this myth alive.
	everybody so many times, even Bart Ehrman says, oh, even atheists like Bart Ehrman say he was real.
	Ehrman's very, oh, you're not a serious scholar if you question Jesus and saying that pushing the fallacy that just, oh, it's always been the consensus that the Society for Biblical Literature, the SBL that he's a member of, that was founded by Christians.
	Biblical studies has always been dominated by believers and that type of.
	So if the believers largely created the consensus, they've just been maintaining that consensus by smearing, dismissing, ignoring credible Jesus mythicist scholars.
	So look what Derek says.
	I work with Bart.
	Bart's a buddy.
	But sometimes I go, not convinced.
	Bart, you're holding on to something I think is old school.
	I want to point this out too.
	As much as I like Bart, and I do, I do like Bart Ehrman.
	I'm a fan.
	I do want to criticize the theory.
	Basically, Bart ends up becoming a backstop for all rational discussion field.
	Anything beyond him, it basically comes up.
	And I've seen it too many times where even Bart Ehrman thinks that the gospels are, you know, this argument, this line of argumentation is hogwash.
	It's fallacious from top to bottom.
	And so I want to hear what Bart has to say, but he is not the representative.
	And like Gary Habermas, the Christian apologist author, he heavily cites Bart Ehrman.
	It's like the Christian's favorite guy to go to to try to like own you, like, oh, the top scholar says this scholar says.
	And you already saw where he got his education.
	You can already see that he's being picked apart by other people in the field.
	Backstop on what good scholarship should look like.
	There's just a quick clip there.
	Look at how Bart Ehrman, this was years ago after his book, The Historical Jesus.
	When somebody asks him if Jesus is a myth, all he ever does is, oh, all the scholars say, all the scholars say, which is not an argument, and gets emotional and angry.
	There's so much evidence.
	I cannot see evidence in archaeology or history or historical Jesus.
	Yeah, well, I do.
	I mean, that's why I wrote the book.
	Well, I mean, okay, yeah, I mean, I have a whole book on it.
	I mean, so there is a lot of evidence.
	I mean, there is so much evidence that it is not.
	I mean, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it's commonly thought that Jesus did not exist.
	Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there's nobody who, I mean, this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.
	It is not an issue for scholars.
	There is no scholar in any college or university in the Western world who teaches classics, ancient history.
	And then Bart Ehrman, in another speech, made it clear that, or show, made it almost made like a veiled threat that you won't get a job.
	You won't get hired.
	You won't get published if you don't toe the line on the historical Jesus.
	They try to shame and say it's a conspiracy theory and you're fringe, but they don't actually address it.
	Again, the first thing he always goes to, they always go to is, well, everybody agrees.
	Everybody always says history, New Testament, early Christianity, any related field who doubts that Jesus existed.
	And a lot of the jobs in this field of biblical studies is at religious schools that require statements of faith, of faith.
	Now, that is not evidence.
	That is not evidence.
	Just because everybody thinks so doesn't make it evidence.
	But if you want to know about the theory of evolution versus the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world thinks it believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you've got a different opinion, you better have a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.
	Comparing Jesus being a myth to creationism, creationism is just like a magical poof, poof, they appeared.
	Jesus is not a Jesus being a myth is not a miracle.
	It'd be like a myth.
	It's common, like every other God, a myth.
	To compare that to like the creationism is so ridiculous.
	The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.
	That's why.
	And I give the details.
	What, the Gospels?
	Paul, who never knew him?
	The earliest layers of the New Testament that don't even talk about an earthly preacher?
	No biographical details.
	Or Josephus Tacitus, many decades later, and not an independent attestation that he actually existed.
	Just short references to Christianity and Christians believing he existed.
	Early sources.
	Or he invents sources like Q and all these other sources that are purely hypothetical and not necessary at all.
	That's why.
	And I give the details in my book.
	Early and independent sources indicate certainly that Jesus existed.
	One author that we know about knew Jesus' brother and knew Jesus' closest disciple, Peter.
	Or they knew Jesus just as Paul knew Jesus from the scriptures and visions after his resurrection appearances.
	Jesus says, or sorry, Paul says one time in his authentic epistles, James the brother of the Lord, but also Paul indicates that all Christians were called brothers, or a certain subset of Christians are known as brothers and sisters, like they still do today.
	And Paul gives no other indication that James is the literal brother of the Lord in his letters.
	And the book of James in the New Testament doesn't give any indication that he's the brother of the Lord either.
	But that's the best he can come up with, which Carrier even says, okay, maybe that's a little bit of evidence that there could be a person, but I've seen evidence that James, just as Paul, was seeing Jesus in ascension experiences and in the scriptures.
	He's an eyewitness to both Jesus' closest disciple and his brother.
	So there's nothing in, you're assuming that he's an eyewitness just because he said brother of the Lord, but there's nothing in Paul about them being eyewitnesses in Paul's letters.
	Eyewitness to an earthly preacher that was doing things, speaking in parables, doing miracles, virgin birth, nothing about his mother Mary, none of the things we find in the gospels.
	I mean, I'm sorry, but, you know, again, I respect your disbelief, but I, you know, if you at least be honest and say that the evidence is really bad.
	Unity 17 for 20 says, great job, Adam.
	Keep up the good work, man.
	Thank you, Unity.
	You're the best.
	I don't know where the evidence goes.
	It's also funny that Christians love to Cite Ehrman to argue that Jesus was a historical person, but then they completely ignore and dismiss all of his other research that the gospels are still largely fiction from scripture and forgeries and stuff.
	Like he wrote a whole book about how the New Testament is forgeries, yet they want to cite him.
	And he's legit and right when he says this, though.
	I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism.
	Again, not related to the proof of Jesus.
	Okay.
	So now we're going to skip to the Jewish Gospels by Daniel Boyer in.
	He's the top Talmudic scholar from Berkeley, professor at Berkeley.
	Stand humiliated and thus recreativity, son of man.
	It's a legend.
	And not save him.
	And initially, the only difference between Christians and Jews was that the former believed that the Messiah had already come, while the latter believed that he was yet to come.
	But because of the fact that the Messiah who had already come was crucified as an ordinary rebel after being scourged and humiliated, and thus was not successful in the political sense, having failed to redeem his people Israel, because of the lowly political status of the Jews at the end of the period of the Second Temple and after the destruction, and because of the fear that the Romans would persecute believers in a political messiah.
	For these reasons, there perforce came about if they promoted a political messiah.
	So instead, they came up with a spiritual, mythical Messiah and played the pacifist to appeal to the Romans so they would adopt it.
	This is important.
	...of the fear that the Romans would persecute believers in a political messiah.
	For these reasons, their perforce came about a development...
	They must have realized that after a bit, if they kept promoting these militaristic political messiahs, it would be crushed by Rome.
	So they instead went for the suffering savior motif.
	Which, if you're going to fake a Messiah, if you're going to write a myth of a Messiah, it would have to be a Messiah that is sacrificed in heaven.
	It can't be, you can't write a myth of a Messiah that conquers Rome in the real world, because you haven't conquered Rome in the real world.
	Everybody would look around and say, oh, there is no Messiah, but you could make a myth of a spiritually victorious Messiah in Jesus.
	Element of ideas, which, after centuries of controversy, became crystallized in Christianity.
	According to Klausner's generally held view, the idea of Messianic suffering, death, and resurrection came about only as an apology after the fact of Jesus' death.
	Okay, so this is the official story again, like Ehrman, or like the History Channel version.
	John Garada says, keep the shuckles coming, Amalekites.
	Our boy is grinding big time, almost a stream every single day.
	And guys, this is crucial year that our future decides Kosher Trump is about to start World War III to fulfill their prophecies.
	So do everything to save ourselves, share the info, and make short clips.
	Yeah.
	Thank you so much, John.
	Wouldn't be able to do this without you, John.
	You're the best.
	In this view, it is simply a scandal for Christian messianic thought that Jesus was scourged and humiliated as a common rebel, despite the fact that he was the Messiah.
	In that case, then why did God allow his chosen one, the Messiah, to undergo frightful suffering and even to be crucified the most shameful death of all, according to Cicero book 24 and Tacitus book 2b, and not see the most shameful death was known to be crucifixion.
	So in the wisdom of Solomon, when it says they put him to a shameful death, that would make them think in all these different verses where it says that this Messiah is pierced would lead them to think that a Messiah was crucified and rejected by his people.
	Not save him from all these things.
	The answer can only be that it was the will of God and the will of the Messiah himself that he should be scourged, humiliated, and crucified.
	But once came a purpose like this that would bring about suffering and death without sin.
	The answer to the question of Jesus' suffering and death, according to Klausner and nearly everyone else, is that the suffering of the Messiah was vicarious and the death an atoning death.
	In other words, the common Christian theology of the cross.
	After the Messiah, Jesus, humiliation, suffering, and death, according to this view, held by many Christian thinkers and scholars, as well as Jewish ones, the theology of Jesus' redemptive, vicarious suffering was discovered, as it were, in Isaiah chapter 53, which was allegedly reinterpreted as referring not to the persecuted people of Israel, but to the suffering Messiah.
	So get it.
	He's explaining the mainstream view that Jesus was a preacher, he was killed by the Romans, and then they started searching his followers, started searching the scriptures to prove he was the Messiah.
	And then he's going to prove why this is wrong.
	Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.
	When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring and shall prolong his days.
	Through him, the will of the Lord shall prosper.
	Out of his anguish, he shall see light.
	He shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
	The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
	Therefore, I will be portioned with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out himself to death and was numbered with the transgressors.
	Yet he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.
	If these verses do indeed refer to the Messiah, they clearly predict his suffering and death to atone for the sins of humans.
	But the Jews allegedly always interpreted these verses as referring to the suffering of Israel herself and not the Messiah who would only triumph.
	To sum up this generally held view, the theology of the suffering of the Messiah was an after-the-fact apologetic response to explain the suffering and ignominy Jesus suffered, since he was deemed by Christians to be the Messiah.
	Christianity on this view was initiated by the fact of the crucifixion, which is seen as setting into motion the new religion.
	Moreover, many who hold this view hold also that Isaiah chapter 53 was distorted by the Christians from its allegedly original meaning.
	That's what the critics say.
	That's what Rabbi Tovia Singer says.
	They say, oh, Christianity took stuff out of context.
	But you heard Carrier say, yes, that's what they were doing back then.
	That was acceptable in some circles.
	In which it referred to the suffering of the people of Israel to explain and account for the shocking fact that the Messiah had been crucified.
	This commonplace view has to be rejected completely.
	This commonplace view that they wouldn't be searching the scriptures and see a suffering Messiah without Jesus needs to be rejected completely, says Daniel Boyerin.
	And this is why.
	This is why Bart Ehrman's wrong about this right here.
	The notion of the humiliated and suffering Messiah was not at all alien within Judaism before Jesus' advent.
	And it remained current.
	The idea of the suffering Messiah was not alien.
	And the critics of Carrier Carrier cites this in his book.
	And then the critics say, Carrier's misrepresenting Daniel Boyer and he's not misrepresenting him at all.
	Perfect context, Carrier puts this in, and they just lie and say it's out of context.
	Among Jews, well into the future following that.
	The notion of the humiliated and suffering Messiah was not at all alien within Judaism before Jesus' advent.
	And it remained current among Jews well into the future following that.
	Indeed, well into the early modern period.
	Way into the Talmud, they were still saying Isaiah 53 was related to the Messiah.
	The fascinating and to some no doubt uncomfortable fact is that this tradition was well documented by modern Messianic Jews who are concerned to demonstrate that their belief in Jesus does not make them un-Jewish.
	It remains the case that they have a very strong textual base for the view that the suffering Messiah is based in deeply rooted Jewish texts early and late.
	Jews, it seems, had no suffering Messiah is deeply Jewish, deeply Jewish, and they would have came up with it just from reading the scriptures.
	No difficulty whatever with understanding a Messiah who would vicariously suffer to redeem the world.
	Once again, what has been allegedly ascribed to Jesus after the fact is, in fact, a piece of entrenched messianic speculation and expectation.
	See, we didn't need Jesus for them to do this.
	This was already Jewish speculation that was going on before Christianity and after Christianity.
	That was current before Jesus came into suffer to redeem the world.
	Once again, what has been allegedly ascribed to Jesus after the fact is, in fact, a piece of entrenched messianic speculation and expectation that was current before Jesus came into the world at all.
	That the Messiah would suffer and be humiliated was something Jews learned from close reading of the biblical texts.
	A close reading in precisely the style of classically rabbinic interpretation that has become known as Midrash.
	Classic rabbinical interpretation is what the early Christians were doing when they invented their Jesus story from the scriptures.
	Listen again, this is so important, okay?
	And this is a reputable top Talmudic scholar, professor from Berkeley, by the way.
	It remains the case that they have a very strong textual base for the view that the suffering Messiah is based in deeply rooted Jewish texts early and late.
	Jews, it seems, had no difficulty whatever with understanding a Messiah who would vicariously suffer to redeem the world.
	Once again, what has been allegedly ascribed to Jesus after the fact is, in fact, a piece of entrenched messianic speculation and expectation that was current before Jesus came into the world at all.
	Expecting a suffering Messiah before Jesus came into the world.
	That the Messiah would suffer and be humiliated was something Jews learned from close reading of the biblical texts.
	We just showed you there.
	Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah, Psalms 22, Wisdom of Solomon.
	Close reading of texts, and you could see, if you interpret them as being about the Messiah, that he suffers and dies, rejected, suffer, dies, and resurrects.
	A close reading in precisely the style of classically rabbinic interpretation that has become known as Midrash.
	The concordance of verses and passages from different places in scripture to derive new narratives, images, and theological ideas.
	New narratives and theological ideas from relating different passages in scripture.
	That's Midrash.
	It's traditional Jewish exegesis at the time, entrenched in Jewish speculation and thought.
	Basically, Jewish mysticism, a form of Jewish mysticism.
	Many Jews were expecting the divine human Messiah, the Son of Man.
	Many accepted Jesus as that figure, while others did not.
	Although there is precious little pre-Christian evidence.
	Many accepted this cosmic savior, others did not.
	Some realized maybe it would be better to adapt this cosmic savior and take him to the Gentiles, because that's what the scriptures seem to indicate should happen.
	Among Jews for the suffering of the Messiah, there are good reasons to consider this, too, no stumbling block for the Jewishness of the ideas about the Messiah, Jesus as well.
	Let me make clear, I am not claiming that Jesus and his followers contributed nothing new to the story of a suffering and dying Messiah.
	I am not, of course, denying them their own religious creativity.
	I am claiming that even this innovation, if indeed they innovated, was entirely within the spirit and hermeneutical method of ancient Judaism and not a scandalous departure from it.
	No scandal, no great departure from Judaism.
	This naturally organically evolved out of Midrashic mystical Judaism, seeing this savior figure Bible code from the Old Testament.
	The point of the Jewishness of the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah can be established in two ways.
	First, by showing how the Gospels use perfectly traditional Midrashic ways of reasoning.
	The Gospels used perfectly traditional Midrashic ways to create their narrative.
	Hear that again?
	Not a scandalous departure from it.
	The point of the Jewishness of the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah can be established in two ways.
	First, by showing how the Gospels use perfectly traditional, midrashic ways of reasoning to develop these ideas and apply them to Jesus.
	And a second, by demonstrating how common the idea of a suffering and dying Messiah was among perfectly orthodox rabbinic Jews from the time of the Talmud and onward.
	My reasoning is that if this were such a shocking thought, how is it that the rabbis of the Talmud and Midrash, only a couple of centuries later, had no difficulty whatever with portraying the Messiah's vicarious suffering or discovering him in Isaiah chapter 53, just as the followers of Jesus had done.
	Yeah, and the Talmud says that Isaiah 53 is speaking about the Messiah and in two different places.
	Okay, now here's Daniel Boyer and we're reading now from Did Jesus Exist, Bart Ehrman's book, The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, and then we're going to show provide some kind of mythic.
	Let's see.
	It is hard to imagine how Jesus could have been made up.
	Paul knew his best friend and his brother.
	Paul also knew that Jesus was James and Paul who also envisioned Jesus as a cosmic savior.
	And they just called people that knew the apostles that knew Jesus brothers, brothers of Christ.
	It is hard to imagine how Jesus could have been made up.
	Paul knew his best friend and his brother.
	Paul also knew that Jesus was crucified.
	Before the Christian movement, there were no Jesus.
	Yeah, that's all he knew.
	And he said he knew it from the scriptures.
	Who's who thought the Messiah was going to suffer?
	Quite the contrary.
	Okay, listen to this.
	Listen to what he says about suffering that we just heard totally debunked by Boyerin.
	Jesus could have been made up.
	Paul knew his best friend and his brother.
	Paul also knew that Jesus was crucified.
	Before the Christian movement, there were no Jews who thought the Messiah was going to suffer.
	Quite the contrary.
	The crucified Jesus was not invented, therefore, to provide some kind of mythical fulfillment of Jewish expectation.
	The single greatest obstacle Christians had when trying to convert Jews was precisely their claim that Jesus had been executed.
	Is that why it became the most popular religion in the world?
	So it's because it's so hard to convince a Messiah would be executed?
	It would not have made that part up.
	Yeah, they wouldn't have made up Jesus, even though it's the Messiah that theologically conquered the world.
	They wouldn't have made it up.
	It just worked out so well that it brainwashed half the planet.
	Listen to this argument.
	This is the best that the historicists have to offer.
	That invention has become so much a part of the standard lingo that Christians today assume it was all part of the original plan of God, as mapped out in the Old Testament.
	But in fact, the idea of a suffering Messiah cannot be found there.
	It had to be created.
	And the reason it had to be created is that Jesus.
	See, he says the suffering Messiah could not have been found in the Old Testament.
	If they're searching the scriptures for hidden mysteries, they could definitely easily read out that a Messiah suffers.
	That you don't have to have an earthly figure that's crucified for them to be doing that.
	That's what they're doing in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Peshers.
	This is what they were doing along after.
	The one Christians considered to be the Messiah Was known by everyone everywhere to have been crucified.
	He couldn't have been killed if he didn't live.
	Jesus.
	No gods have ever been killed before, huh?
	There's no mythical figures don't ever die.
	Mythical figures don't have brothers and stuff.
	This is what you get from Bart Ehrman.
	Known by everyone everywhere, to have been crucified.
	Jesus, the one Christian considered to be the Messiah, was known by everyone everywhere, to have been crucified.
	Everyone everywhere, except nobody else wrote about it outside of the Bible.
	And the earliest layers of the Bible don't even talk about it happening on earth.
	And Paul was never there and not an eyewitness.
	The gospels aren't until decades later.
	How could he get away saying stuff like that?
	Everyone everywhere knew it.
	He couldn't have been killed if he didn't live.
	Yes.
	Mythical figures can die, right?
	Am I wrong about this?
	Couldn't die.
	Checkmate.
	He couldn't die if he didn't live.
	Jesus certainly existed.
	My goal in this book, however, is not simply to sh it is hard to imagine.
	And that was the end.
	So you could see Boyerin's argument and Carrier's Ehrman's argument.
	I want to point this out too.
	As much as I work with Barton.
	This is the one we played.
	Played that one too.
	Okay.
	Biblical studies.
	That's watching this right now.
	Listen to the problem with biblical studies.
	The largest guild, the Society for Biblical Literature, the SBL, where Bart Ehrman's a top member, full of a bunch of religious people as well.
	And here's Dr. Richard C. Miller expressing, explaining the huge problem with biblical studies and this charade of a consensus about the historical Jesus.
	And if you go to, and if you go to SBL, you'll see it in giant, and I'm sure I'm upsetting someone that's watching this right now that finds that dear, but you'll say a giant session with hundreds, perhaps hundreds of people in there trying to explore this question.
	They're on a pilgrimage.
	I would call it a religious faith-based pilgrimage in some way.
	Even though they're discounting pieces of Jesus, they're still trying to get to that holy man at the bottom of it all, trying to get down to the kernel, the founding figure.
	They're trying to derive that.
	It's an academic pilgrimage that's rooted in an obsession with finding the originary kernel and the tradition.
	Even the most distant participants in our discourse often are still, even unbeknownst to them, unwittingly often, still in orbit around that gravitational center of faith.
	You see, because they have all these Christians in biblical studies, even the secular, even the secular scholars, listen to how he explains it.
	Often are still, even unbeknownst to them, unwittingly often, still in orbit around that gravitational center.
	Still in orbit around the consensus like Bart Ehrman of faith.
	It's such a powerful influence.
	There's too much at stake there.
	Even the most distant participants in our discourse often are still, even unbeknownst to them, unwittingly often, still in orbit around that gravitational center of faith.
	It's such a powerful influence.
	No one wants to, there's too much at stake there.
	And so Pascal's wager, maybe we can get into that in another video, but that's a major part of this that needs to come into play that doesn't exist for other subject matters.
	And so what's at stake for society, culture, their own eternal destiny, their own sense of comfort and construction of their own identity?
	There's too much self-interest in this field.
	And in my view, that disqualifies nearly all the participants.
	And so I know that's going to sound crazy, but I think that's honest.
	I'm perceived as on the radical far end of the discussion.
	Like, in fact, I even read, there was a blog or something that came out a few days ago where it was like Miller and like a few of the, where we're kind of like pushed off to the margins like just these wild like desperados.
	Well, you know, even Carrier, you know, and he's, I understand, but he, you know, there, the the problem is, is that, yeah, we look radical to this discourse, what I would call the Big Ten or circus of nonsense.
	But if you get to the actual discourse, the human discourse, the secular academic discourse, we're smack dab in the middle.
	We are mainstream.
	Those guys don't want to go to SBL.
	They think it's a circus.
	And so they don't want to have any part of it.
	That maelstrom of belief and all of the loaded topics and all that's the charged kind of politics that's going on with that.
	And so I even brought up to Cusco, the former president of SBL, when I was more involved there, before I got completely frustrated.
	I said, why don't we have a checkbox at least so that when people start sessions at the conference, they could indicate this is a purely secular session or this is a purely evidence-driven humanistic kind of platform.
	Please do not, you know, we do not invite, you know, discussion that's that's aimed at theological constructs or anything that's motivated by faith whatsoever.
	Even if you were to announce that, people would show up and still import all of their beliefs and so on.
	Of course.
	So, yeah, it's almost impossible.
	It's impossible basically to get out of that.
	And so I just decided that my discourse is going to be outside of that.
	You're suggesting that there would be no way to probably keep that career and do what you were doing and write what you're writing and actually teach what you're teaching here and keep a career at somewhere like Yale Divinity or Princeton Theological or any of these places.
	You would probably lose your job without a doubt.
	I haven't heard the phone call yet.
	And I don't know.
	I mean, I understand that maybe they see me as not qualified or something like that.
	I don't know what the, you know, they're very selective and they only have openings here and there.
	And I'm probably not on their short list at this point.
	But just this kind of stuff, I mean, that's what they'd have to weigh through.
	Do we want somebody like this that's doing work that's so upsetting to so many people in a context where we're training ministers and clergy and clerics and this kind of thing?
	Is that where he belongs?
	Professors over me training me from various places, UCLA, Yale, the Claremont Colleges and other places.
	And so I was in those contexts and I got to hear what the backroom discussions were at a lot of these places.
	And no, they don't want to touch this with a 10-foot pole.
	They're not interested.
	Even the people that I got on my dissertation committee, it was a little bit of a struggle to get them to be part of it.
	And I thank them because their careers are now tied to my work in some ways.
	It's almost like there's a whole industry of keeping the Jesus myth alive, influenced by a lot of religious bias, of course, by a lot of book sales, by a lot of reputations, trying to maintain the status quo and this consensus that was created.
	I mean, before the 1800s, before Protestant Reformation, nobody could hardly even read the Bible.
	Most of the people that ever converted in history were illiterate.
	And there wasn't biblical criticism until like the Renaissance, basically, when people had access to books, were literate, and were actually reading these things and poking holes in the story.
	Before that, you would be executed for blasphemy in a lot of places throughout history if you said Jesus didn't exist.
	That's that the consensus has still been maintained, and they've little pieces have been chipped off over the years, but still the historical figure, they're still maintaining it in our religious Abrahamic matrix that we're in.
	They might not have signed on for that.
	They don't want to be part of being pulled into some apologetic debate with people throwing mud and poop at them.
	And they've got dignified careers all in their own right, and they didn't sign up for that.
	And so it definitely spoils and ruins, and I think utterly destroys the discourse.
	Discourse is destroyed.
	Biblical studies has issues, in other words, this consensus is highly flawed.
	Let's see here.
	We read that one.
	Son of man.
	Okay, here we go.
	Here's more from Daniel Boyer in the story of the Jewish Christ, the Jewish Gospels, how Jesus is a Midrash in Mark, fictional Midrashic story connecting the Son of Man in Daniel and the suffering servant of Isaiah 52, 53.
	Shorter one, one minute, 40 seconds.
	If this text be deemed genuine, then we have clear evidence that by the third century, Rabbinic readers understood the suffering servant to be the Messiah who suffers to vicariously atone for the sins of humans.
	There are also various medieval Jewish commentators, among them figures marginal to rabbinic Judaism, but hardly suspected of Christian leanings, such as the Karai Yephet Ben Ali, who clearly understand the Isaiah text and its suffering servant as about the Messiah.
	The early modern Kabbalist Rabbi Moshe Al-Shach, also a spotlessly Orthodox rabbinite teacher, writes, I may remark then that our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the king Messiah, and we ourselves also adhere to the same view.
	The intellectual giant of Spanish Jewry, Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, concedes that according to the Midrash and the rabbis of the Talmud, Isaiah chapter 53 is entirely about the Messiah, but he dissents.
	As we see.
	Oh, all the rabbis are agreeing that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah, but Bart Ehrman and historicists argue that the Christians, early Jewish Christians, would have never thought it was about the suffering Messiah, but without Jesus to exist, they thought it afterwards for sure that they had no problem with it.
	And it's easy to see how they could have.
	Melchizedek scroll 11q13 cites Daniel and Isaiah 52 to be about this messianic redemption age.
	See, neither Judaism nor Jews have ever spoken with one voice on this hermeneutical theological question.
	And therefore, there is no sense in which the assertion of many sufferings and rejection and contempt for the Son of Man constitutes a break with Judaism or the religion of Israel.
	Indeed, in the Gospels, these ideas have been derived from the Torah, scripture in its broadest meaning, by that most Jewish of exegetical styles, the way of Midrash.
	There is no essentially Christian, drawn from the cross, versus Jewish triumphalist notion of the Messiah, but only one complex and contested Messianic idea, shared by Mark and Jesus with the full community of the Jews.
	The description of the Christ as predicting his own suffering, and then that very suffering in the Passion narrative, the passion of the Christ, does not in any way then contradict the assertion of Martin Hengel that Christianity grew entirely out of Jewish soil.
	Such a compelling narrative of divine being and function to have developed.
	But if I wanted to show you guys this real quick before I play another clip, so we've got Daniel 7, the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven.
	In Mark, Jesus says this is about him.
	Look at what the Son of Man is supposed to do in the book of Enoch.
	The Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of spirits.
	He shall be a light of the Gentiles.
	It's like Isaiah 49 and 42.
	All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him.
	That's the role of the Son of Man.
	That's the role of Jesus.
	Light to the Gentiles.
	All the earth fall down and worship him.
	I mean, it's a plan to theologically conquer the world.
	And for this reason, he has been chosen, hidden before him before the creation of the world.
	So that's what it says in Paul, too.
	The mystery hidden in the scriptures since before the creation of the world.
	A wisdom of the Lord of spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous.
	So the apostles can the Lord reveals Jesus from the scriptures to the holy and righteous that can interpret it the right way.
	In these days, the downcast and countenance shall the kings of the earth have become.
	Jesus is going to conquer the kings.
	For on the day of their anguish and affliction, they shall not be able to save themselves.
	I will give them over into the hands of mine elect.
	So in the end, who became the Christians will be handed over to the Jews.
	As a straw in the fire, so shall they burn before the face of the holy, and no trace of them shall be any more be found.
	Just like they say Esau is stubble, Jacob aflame, for they have denied his anointed.
	Anybody that doesn't go with the Moshiach at the end times, that's the book of Enoch, son of man, what that's about.
	It may have been necessary that Jesus was so extraordinary for such a compelling narrative of divine being and function to have developed, but it was hardly sufficient.
	Even more so, the notion that some kind of experience of the risen Christ preceded and gave rise to the idea that he would rise seems to me so unlikely as to be incredible.
	Perhaps his followers saw him arisen.
	Okay, this is so important, too.
	This is good argumentation from Boyerin that totally disproves Ehrman.
	Listen closely.
	Seems to me so unlikely as to be incredible and gave rise to the idea that he that some kind of experience of the risen Christ preceded and gave rise to the idea that he would rise seems to me so unlikely as to be incredible.
	Perhaps his notion that some kind of experience of the risen Christ preceded and gave rise to the idea that he would rise.
	See, the idea that they really all saw Jesus in visions seems to me so unlikely as to be incredible.
	Perhaps his followers saw him arisen, but surely this must be because they had a narrative that led them to expect such appearances.
	They were reading the scriptures and expected to see to see this figure.
	That's what he's trying to say.
	It's more likely that they would see a resurrection experience because they expected it, not because it actually happened.
	If there really was a historical Jesus and this is how Christianity started, it's unlikely that all of them would be having the same exact vision.
	The notion that some kind of experience of the risen Christ preceded and gave rise to the idea that he would rise seems to me so unlikely as to be incredible.
	Perhaps his followers saw him arisen, but surely this must be because they had a narrative that led them to expect such appearances, and not that the appearances gave rise to the narrative.
	An alternative account such as I have given here seems much more likely to make historical sense.
	A people had been for centuries talking about, thinking about, and reading about a new king, a son of David, who would come to redeem them from Seleucid and then Roman oppression.
	And they had come to think of that king as a second, younger divine figure on the basis of the book of Daniel's reflection of that very ancient tradition.
	The son of man, and then you also see Enoch 2, which was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	Details of his life, his prerogatives, his powers, and even his suffering and death before triumph are all developed out of close midrashic reading of the biblical materials and fulfilled in his life and death.
	All of the aspects of Jesus and fulfilled all developed out of close midrashic.
	Developed out of close midrashic reading of Old Testament texts.
	I can show you some and fulfilled in his life and death.
	The exaltation and resurrection experiences of his followers are a product of the narrative, not a cause of it.
	This is not to deny any creativity on the part of Jesus or his early or later followers, but only to suggest strongly that such creativity is most richly and compellingly read within the Jewish textual and intertextual world.
	Okay, so here's another mix.
	This is a different one now.
	It goes into some different things like this is good.
	The Psalms of Solomon.
	He may shatter unrighteous rulers.
	He shall destroy the pride of the sinners as a potter's vessel with a rod of iron.
	He shall break in pieces all their substance, just like Psalms 2:9.
	He shall destroy the godless nations with the word of his mouth, as the teachings of Jesus conquered the idolatrous world.
	At his rebuke, nations shall see before him and shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their hearts.
	You guys heard of Psalms of Solomon?
	It's another, it's in the Septuagint, another early Jewish book that they read to create the Jesus story.
	He shall judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness.
	He shall have the heathen nations to serve him under his yoke, and he shall glorify the Lord in a place to be seen of all the earth.
	So that the Goyim shall come from the ends of the earth to see his glory.
	All nations shall be in fear before him.
	He will smite the earth with the word of his mouth forever.
	So they didn't conquer with their military Messiah, but with the teachings of Christianity.
	He will bless the people with his wisdom.
	He himself will be pure from sin, as they say Jesus was, so that he may rule a great people.
	He will rebuke rulers and remove sinners from the might of his word.
	Removing sinners.
	That's a little dirty to say.
	Okay, now look at Isaiah 49, another messianic text that they interpreted to be about Jesus.
	You distant nations.
	Before I was born, the Lord called me from my mother's womb.
	He has spoken my name.
	He made my mouth like a sharpened sword.
	In the shadow of his hand, he hid me.
	He made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver.
	You are my servant.
	The servant is concealed as the Messiah is concealed.
	I will also make you a light for the Gentiles that my salvation may reach the ends of the earth.
	They interpreted that to be about Jesus.
	And verse 7, kings will see you and stand up.
	Princes will see you and bow down because of the Lord who is faithful, who has chosen you of Israel.
	Isaiah 49, 22, the Lord says, I will beckon to the nations.
	I will lift up my banner to the peoples.
	As the Messiah lifted up his banner for the Goyam to follow.
	Kings will be your foster fathers, their queens, your nursing mothers.
	They will bow down before you with their, let's cut off with their feet.
	They will lick the dust at your feet.
	Then you will know that I am the Lord.
	Those who hope in me will not be disappointed.
	That's what all the Goyim bowing down, licking the dust of the feet of the Messiah.
	Isaiah 49 in the Orthodox Jewish Bible, it says, I will lift up my, what is that, rod to the goyem and set my banner, the banner up to the nations for the Moshiach.
	They shall bow down and lick the earth and shall know that I am Hashem.
	That's what Jesus is supposed to do.
	Now, Isaiah 42, also messianic verse that they say is about Jesus.
	I guess I got to go back to all over Isaiah.
	They were quote mining and using as inspiration about their Jesus story.
	See through it all, says their psychopaths.
	Isaiah 11, 1 to 2, there shall come forth a rod.
	Rod is interpreted to be about the Messiah and Jesus from the stem of Jesse and also the branch.
	So connecting the branch, Messianic, and the rod is messianic.
	And it's talking about the branch is the branch of David.
	David was the son of Jesse, King David, the Davidic Messiah.
	And Isaiah 11, so that's Isaiah 11, 1, Isaiah 11, 9.
	The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
	The Messiah is meant to conquer the earth.
	In that day, there shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand for an insign, a banner of the people.
	To it shall the Gentiles seek.
	So ancient Jews that are reading Isaiah as its prophecies about their Messiah, it says clearly that he's going to be rejected by the Jews and the Gentiles will seek him.
	That's where they got the plan for the conspiracy to come up to go to the Gentiles.
	To him, the Moshiach will the Goyam seek.
	Isaiah 4.2, the branch, again, the branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious.
	Yes.
	Isaiah 42, the servant.
	So the servant again connects all these.
	So any verse that says the servant, early Christians said that that's the Messiah.
	That's Jesus.
	So we have the servant.
	He will bring justice to the nations, Isaiah 42.
	And in his teachings, he will establish justice on earth, and the islands will put their hope.
	So the Gentiles, all of the world, the islands will put their hope into the Messiah.
	Yeah.
	Matthew quotes from Isaiah 42.
	Look at this, Matthew, now.
	Isaiah 12.
	This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah, where he cites Isaiah 42.
	Here is my servant, will proclaim justice to the nations.
	In his name, the nations will put their hope.
	That's where they got the idea to get all the Goam to believe in the Messiah through the rejection.
	And the rejection, like Isaiah 14, says, a stone that causes the people to stumble, a rock that makes them fall, for the people of Jerusalem, he will be a trap and a snare.
	Jesus is a trap and a snare.
	Paul cites in Romans 15, 12, and again, Isaiah said, he's citing Isaiah 11, 1, like we showed a second ago.
	The root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to what's the, what's Jesus going to do?
	Rule over the Goyam.
	In him, the Gentiles will hope.
	See that?
	So Paul is connecting Isaiah 11, the rod of stem of Jesse, the branch, to Isaiah 42.
	The islands will put their hope.
	This is the midrash that they use to fabricate Christianity from the scriptures.
	Romans 15, 18, he also says, make the Gentiles obedient.
	That's also the obedience of the nations will be his.
	That's another verse.
	Jeremiah identifies the Davidic Messiah as a righteous branch in Jeremiah 23 and 33, our righteous savior, the branch from David's line.
	Psalms 2.
	Why do the nations conspire?
	I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.
	You will break them with a rod of iron.
	Therefore, you kings, be wise, be warned, you rulers of the earth.
	Serve the Lord with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling.
	Again, that's trembling going, bowing down to the Moshiach of the Jews.
	That's why they invented Jesus.
	Okay, that's suffering.
	But that's so here's Jesus verse Bart Ehrman.
	Again, his argument.
	Listen.
	Each of these passages talks about someone suffering, but that someone is never the Messiah.
	He's saying Isaiah 53 is never the Messiah.
	Couldn't have been interpreted to be about the Messiah unless the followers of Jesus went searching after he died.
	They obviously were doing it before.
	In Isaiah 53.
	And there's no need to have a historical figure.
	They would have done this inevitably.
	Each of these passages talks about someone suffering, but that someone is never the Messiah.
	In Isaiah 53, for example, the sufferer is called not the Messiah, but the servant of the Lord.
	And the passage speaks about his suffering in the past tense as something that has already happened at the time of writing, 600 years before Jesus.
	And again, it doesn't matter because the early Christians, the early Jewish Christians, didn't care about the original context.
	They were madrashically reinterpreting these things.
	Like it's all of the scriptures are a puzzle.
	And if they just can make the right connections midrashically, they can learn secrets about their cosmic Messiah.
	They ignored the context of what it really meant.
	By him arguing this shows that he doesn't even like comprehend.
	he's not even addressing what the other side of the argument is.
	As interpreters have long noted, Even when tons of money was offered that could go to the charity of their choice, he still wouldn't debate him.
	600 years before Jesus.
	As interpreters have long noted, if read in context, the author actually tells us who this servant of the Lord is.
	And the original Christians didn't care about the context.
	In Isaiah chapter 49, verse 3, the prophet declares, And he said to me, You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
	It is Israel who is God's servant, who has suffered for the sins of the people and so brought healing.
	Isaiah 53 was written during the Babylonian exile, when the Babylonian armies had taken the leaders of Judah hundreds of miles away and forced them to live in Babylon.
	Isaiah is lamenting the exile, but indicating that the suffering will bring atonement for the sins of the people.
	And I completely agree.
	This is what Isaiah was originally about.
	And that's irrelevant to the argument we're making here that they didn't, that they ignored the original context.
	Scalunda for 20 says, great stream, Adam.
	A lot of material to go over.
	It is, I told you, it's a lot of research.
	I will be watching this one several times.
	I'll share it where I can.
	And what Christians do you know have been reading all these different books and digging into all these arguments and have studied the scriptures so closely to see how this story was fabricated whole cloth, piecing together like a divine puzzle this hidden mysteries of God.
	I missed your super chat.
	I'll go look for it, Drum and Bass.
	Sorry.
	And God will restore their fortunes.
	He is not talking about the future Messiah.
	An even more important point is this.
	There were no Jews prior to Christianity who thought Isaiah...
	Drum and Bass World, Adam, do you know historian estimates on when these various books were written like Wisdom of Solomon?
	I think the dating for Wisdom of Solomon is 100 BC or 200 BC.
	I'll look it up real quick, see what it says.
	Isaiah 53 or any of the other suffering passages referred to the future Messiah.
	We do not have a single Jewish text prior to the time of Jesus that interprets that passage messianically.
	So why do Christians traditionally interpret it this way?
	For the same reason they think that the Messiah had to suffer.
	In their view, Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus suffered.
	Therefore, the Messiah had to suffer.
	And this must not have come as a surprise to God.
	It must have all been planned.
	And so Christians found passages in the Hebrew Bible that talked about someone suffering and said that it referred to the suffering of the future Messiah, Jesus.
	Jews roundly and loudly disagreed with these interpretations.
	And so the arguments began.
	Before he converted, Paul was on the side of the non-Christian Jews.
	The idea of a suffering Messiah ran so counter to scripture and the righteous expectations of...
	See, the suffering Messiah is so counter to scripture.
	No, we already went over all of the ways you could see that it would be about a suffering Messiah.
	Your argument, your whole argument about the original context of Isaiah is irrelevant.
	They were ignoring the context.
	And Melchizedek scroll...
	I'll have to show you that, apparently.
	Because I mentioned it five times.
	The Melchizedek scroll found in the Dead Sea Scrolls before Christianity talks about Melchizedek like Jesus is Melchizedek.
	And it's citing Isaiah 61 about the end times.
	It's citing Psalms, several different Psalms.
	Isaiah 52, 7.
	So they're talking about a messianic time of what they think redemption is going to be like.
	And they're citing Daniel 9, 26 and Isaiah 52.
	To talk about their days of salvation.
	This is what they were doing.
	They didn't need to be a historical figure for them to go do what they were already doing.
	people that it was completely unthinkable, even blasphemous.
	Paul, though, had a change of mind and later decided that this one who stood under God's curse, since anyone who hangs on a tree is cursed, was in fact the Christ.
	He was cursed by God not for anything he himself had done, but for what others had done.
	He bore the curse that others deserved and saved them from the wrath of God.
	Once Paul was convinced of this, he turned from being a persecutor of the Christians to being their most famous advocate, missionary, and theologian.
	It was a conversion for the ages.
	Okay, let's hear a little more from did Jesus exist.
	Bart Ehrman realized that this is free use.
	This is for criticism.
	But still, aren't there any passages that refer to a suffering Messiah?
	Some mythicists realize that this is a problem because if someone wanted to make up a Messiah, as they claim Christians made up Jesus, they would never have made one up who suffered, since that is what precisely no one expected.
	They would never have invented a suffering Messiah.
	Total bullocks.
	They couldn't invent a military, victorious Messiah.
	You can't fake something like that, but you could fake a suffering Messiah that suffered cosmically in the divine temple.
	You could make up something like that and say, oh, it's his teachings.
	The Gentiles just need to adopt his teachings and worship the God of Israel and have faith.
	It worked.
	The Messiah, as you see from all the scriptures, was intended on conquering Rome.
	And Jesus, the Jewish king, conquered Rome through Christianity.
	Like Maimonides, their top rabbi says, prepared the world for the messianic age.
	One mythicist who addresses the problem is Richard Carrier, whom I mentioned in an earlier context, as one of the two mythicists in the world that I know of with a graduate degree in a relevant subject.
	In this case, a PhD that you know of.
	There's others also that share these ideas.
	And he'll mention Carrier in his book, but you'll never debate him.
	Carrier responded to this book in his book, Historicity of Jesus.
	And Ehrman just backs out.
	And I've seen lots of it.
	Fitzgerald's very critical of this book as well.
	From Columbia.
	He is one smart fellow, but I'm afraid he falls down on this one.
	Even smart people make mistakes.
	In his recent book, Not the Impossible Faith, Why Christianity Didn't need a miracle to succeed.
	Carrier states that this idea of a suffering, executed God would resonate especially with those Jews and their sympathizers who expected a humiliated Messiah.
	This statement is problematic on all counts.
	For one thing, the earliest Christians from, say, the early 30s CE, as we will see later, did not talk about or think of Jesus as God.
	Second, we know of no Jews who thought, even in their wildest dreams, that God could be executed.
	And third, of particular relevance to my argument here, there were none who expected a humiliated Messiah.
	Yeah, you can, there were none, none who expected a message.
	How do you know what every single Jew believed?
	If they're reading the scriptures and interpreting them to be about the Messiah, you can easily see how the Messiah has a humiliation, shameful death, like it says in Wisdom of Solomon.
	Second, we know of no Jews who thought, even and he said, we know of no Jews that thought, even after Christianity, the Talmud looks, it says Isaiah 53 is in reference to the Messiah.
	And even in the Talmud, long after Christianity, they said they talked about a suffering Messiah, Ben-Joseph.
	So as Boyerin said, this idea was not alien to Judaism at all.
	They were perfectly okay with thinking of a suffering Messiah.
	There's two Messiahs found in a fragment scroll in Qumran as well.
	Carrier tries to establish his point about the humiliated Messiah by first quoting Isaiah 53.
	But as I've shown, Isaiah is not speaking about the future Messiah, and he was never interpreted by any Jews prior to the first century as referring to the Messiah.
	Just because you don't have that, and there's Targums also where they question maybe if they were.
	And by the way, again, we don't care.
	He goes, oh, Carrier thinks Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah, but that's out of context.
	We know.
	To misrepresent that Carrier argues in his argument includes that they interpreted out of context is just completely not understanding the argument.
	He was never interpreted by any Jews prior to the first century as referring to the Messiah.
	Carrier's argument becomes more interesting when he appeals to a passage in chapter 9 of the book of Daniel.
	This is one of those post-dated prophecies so common in the final six chapters of Daniel.
	By post-dated prophecies, I mean this.
	The book of Daniel claims to be written by a Hebrew man, Daniel, in the Babylonian exile around 550 BCE.
	In actual fact, as critical scholars have long known, Carrier agrees with this.
	It was written closer to 160 BCE.
	When the character Daniel in the book predicts what is going to happen, even Ehrman agrees that Daniel is a forgery, and they claim prophecies are going to be fulfilled after they already happened.
	The real author, pretending to be Daniel, simply indicates what already did happen.
	And so it sounds as if the sixth century prophet knows the future, because what he predicted, in fact, came to pass.
	Daniel 9 is a complicated passage.
	Daniel's a forgery.
	The book of Daniel is a forgery, and so much of the Jesus narrative is built upon Daniel that's a forgery.
	Predicts in precise detail what will happen to the people of Jerusalem over the course of 70 weeks that have been decreed for your people and your holy city to furnish the transgression to put an end to sin and to atone for iniquity.
	Hmm.
	um, Let's see, since we're already two hours in, I have all these rabbi clips now talking about.
	Look, even the Talmud teaches the same Gentile conversion doctrine as Paul in Romans.
	The Talmud Pesachim 87b cites Hosea 2.25.
	I will say to them that were not my people, you are my people.
	Even those who were initially not my people, Gentiles, will convert and become part of the Jewish nation.
	That's what they did with Christianity.
	The Talmud cites Hosea 2.25 about converting the Gentiles.
	Hosea 2.25.
	So too, the exile is to enable the converts from the Goyim to join the Jewish people.
	The Holy One, blessed be he, exiled Israel among the nations only so that converts would join them.
	Converts like Christianity.
	Romans 9.25, Paul cites Hosea the same verse, I will call them my people who are not my people.
	It's Talmudic.
	Convert the Gentiles' agenda.
	Paul aligns with the Talmud.
	Hosea 2.23, Romans 9.25.
	I will say to them, which were not my people, thou art my people.
	We're already two hours in, so I'm not going to play all these rabbis explaining how Christianity fulfilled Jewish prophecy of converting them to believe in the Messiah.
	Got several of those.
	We'll save those for another show.
	But that is the Jesus myth scripture midrash argument so far that we have.
	A lot of this is going to be in my book, The Jesus Deception.
	We're going to close it out today.
	Land the plane, as Owen Benjamin says.
	Just keep it under two hours because this is a deep dive and only people can only handle so much scripture in a sitting.
	But I appreciate you all for joining me today.
	Appreciate everybody for the support.
	Rage of the Wolf, Faithon DG says the Bible story with Jesus figure has been written 15 times like Horace, Mithra, Christian, Dionysus.
	Jewish writers stole to write the Bible.
	It's greatest story ever told.
	325 Council of Nicaea made King James.
	No, King James was long after that.
	Froggyman McGee says, Most, if not all, Christians I've met or known have never truly read the Bible and done actual research into the history of all the Abrahamic religions.
	These people are also very belligerent schizophrenics who just parrot what others have said without question.
	And if they do question it, it's just Normie's questioning.
	Right.
	DG says, thank you for the great content today.
	Cheers.
	I hope you guys liked it.
	It's a little autistic deep dive.
	I tried to warn you, deep research went into this one.
	Not your usual news stream.
	It's going to go in the Jesus Deception playlist.
	Gulak Lukak Luluk says, I know you're a man of bacon, but how do you feel about coconuts?
	I like coconuts too.
	Thank you, John.
	Drum and bass world, son of Mars.
	Immortal Al says, shout out to my friend, Rage of the Wolf.
	Thank you, Skalundra, for the 20 drum and bass world.
	One more question, Adam.
	I know it was hard work to collect all these passages.
	Are you plan on selling, releasing your Midrash chart?
	No, I'm not going to sell the Midrash chart, but I posted it online.
	I have a version that has, I posted the one online that has my logo watermarked across it.
	So it is online.
	I'll repost it for you today.
	I'll repost it again when I post this video or underneath the post for this video on Twitter and Telegram.
	Appreciate everybody for the support helping to contribute to all this deep research and do these shows.
	I wouldn't be able to do it without you.
	Let me know what you guys think in the comments below.
	Where am I wrong about any of this?
	What are your arguments specifically against me against the evidence?
	Let me know what you guys think in the comments.
	Ari Shafir gets it right.
	Who is the most successful greatest Jew of all time?
	Weird.
	The greatest Jew of all time.
	Oh, that's a good question.
	Jesus is up there.
	He succeeded where no one else did.
	Larry Davids, probably too.
	Weird.
	Jesus succeeded where no one else did, fulfilling the objective of the Messiah to theologically conquer the nations.
	If you guys want to support the channel, join button on Odyssey, subscribestar link.
	Also, you can sign up for monthly subscriptions, the P.O. box below.
	I can't do this without you.
	Every dollar helps.
	I need it to support my family and continue this work, exposing the Judeo paradigm, the Zionist matrix.
	Love you all.
	See you again.
	And we'll cover the rest of these videos, these rabbi videos another time to add it to the database of videos exposing the greatest conspiracy, the greatest deception of all time, the Jesus deception.
	Love you all.
	See you again very soon.
	Have a nice night and take care.
	I got huge debates being set up next week.
	You guys are going to love it.
	Thank you.
	Underneath the bridge, and the animals have strapped.
	I've all become my best And I'm living off of grass And I'm Rippings from the sea.
	It's okay to eat fish Cause I don't really need fish It's
	okay to eat fish It's
	okay to eat fish When I move, my past.
	And I'm living off of grass.

▲