Is Jesus a Myth?

Is Jesus A Myth?

If Jesus is just a myth, as many skeptics assert, then Christianity is false. It’s that simple! Karlo Broussard dives into how we can know that Jesus was a real historical person. A first step for many on their way to belief in God.

Copyright Catholic Answers, Inc. 2016

STAY CONNECTED!

HELP US make more movie like this one!

About Karlo Broussard:

Karlo holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in theology from Catholic Distance University and the Augustine Institute, and is currently working on his masters in philosophy with Holy Apostles College and Seminary. He also worked for several years in an apprenticeship with nationally known author and theologian Fr. Robert J. Spitzer at the Magis Center of Reason and Faith.

Karlo is one of the most dynamic and gifted Catholic speakers on the circuit today, communicating with precision of thought, a genuine love for God, and an enthusiasm that inspires.

Script:

The unique thing about Christianity is that it rises or falls with Jesus. If Jesus is just a myth, as many skeptics assert, then Christianity is false. It’s that simple!

So, is there any evidence that Jesus was a historical person? The answer’s yes!

First, we have the four Gospels and Paul’s epistles, which were written within 30-60 years after Jesus’ life. Unfortunately though, skeptics are not likely to accept this evidence because it’s Christian sources. While it’s not fair to rule out Christian sources just because they’re Christian, let’s concede to the objection for argument’s sake and provide some non-Christian sources.

Consider the first century Jewish historian, Josephus, who, in his history of the Jewish people called "Antiquities of the Jews," refers to Jesus twice. Book 20 contains a quick indirect reference when Josephus writes about James, the “brother of Jesus.” In Book 18, however, Josephus names Jesus, describes him as “a wise man,” “a doer of startling deeds,” and “a teacher,” and affirms his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. While the passage in Book 18 contains additions by Christian copyists, the elements mentioned are considered historical.

How about Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian of the first century? In his work, "Annals," he refers to a group of people called “Christians” and describes their leader as “Christus, the founder of the name, [who] was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberias.”

So, with evidence from both Christian and non-Christian sources, we can be sure Jesus was not a myth, but was a real historical person.

For Catholic Answers, I’m Karlo Broussard. Thanks for watching.

[dougzembiec]

The first mention of jesus by Josephus is broadly regarded as an interpolation by Christian and non Christian scholars. The second mention of Jesus has nothing to do with the Christian jesus. It's some other jesus. If you think I'm lying then go to the actually source of josephus' writings and read the whole passage to get context. Honestly I think this guy probably knows that but when you're lying for jesus it isn't really a sin is it?

[dougzembiec]

1:39 - notice how he mentions Tacitus "a first century historian".... As if that qualifies what Tacitus wrote as being first In 116CE, in the Annals, Tacitus briefly mentions Jesus.
Now let's think about it, no Greek or Roman historian, religious scholar, Politician or poet mentions Jesus AT All in the 1st century. Tacitus was born after the supposed Jesus. So where would he have gotten his info from???.... Obviously Christians alive at the time who believed this The source isn't independent.

[MarcillaSmith]

Two non-Christian sources are cited: Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus has been implicated by Christ Mythicists as likely to have been involved in crafting the gospel. Therefore his writings do not disprove the Christ Myth Theory.

As for Tacitus, he wrote in the *2nd* century AD/CE (I trust that was an honest mistake on the part of the UL'er) about "Chrestians, " giving no more information about them than what would have been contained in their own claims. He may have also given the incorrect rank for Pontius Pilate and confused the Jesus-following Christians with the more rebellious and violent Sicarii christians

[dannycv]

Nice info but, did a Catholic just said Jesus had a brother?
(1:02 min)

[truehistory]

First of all, Santa Claus is considered a myth even though it's based off of some true history (Saint Nicholas). This is because the large bulk of the traditional Santa Claus story is most definitely mythology. The same applies to Jesus. 95% of the Jesus story is considered by historians to be mythology. The only part in question is whether there was a real man at the root of the stories. And even then, as Marcilla Smith noted below, the sources aren't that great and are pretty dubious. So by that standard, you have to be rational and consider it to be a myth.

[Maximara]

Misrepresentation from the word go. 1) of the 13 epistles only 7 were written by Paul and all we know about the other is they existed some time before c140. 2) Josephus' testimonium flavianum is a clear forgery and the efforts to save it would be funny if they wasn't so pathetic. 3) Tacitus has a strange gap covering 29-31 CE that is so precise that it cannot be an accident and we know the version have have has been tampered with. 4) Tacitus' account is at odds with the *Christian* works _The apocryphal Acts of Paul_ (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (150-200 CE) where the first has Nero reacting to claims of sedition by the group and the other saying thanks to a vision he left them alone.

[samdon]

IF JESUS IS JUST A MYTH. WHY PEOPLE IN MY AREAS HEAL PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF JESUS. I HAVE SEEN MANY PEOPLE ARE FREED FROM DEVIL POSSESSION BY PRAYING IN THE NAME OF JESUS. I DON'T THINK DEVIL SPIRITS AFRAID OF A MYTHICAL PERSON'S NAME.🙄🙄

[PaulW-ot]

He may have existed, but maybe his identity as the son of god was mythical

[eugenespolicyproductions]

that doesn't make sense there are stories about every religion

[andersoneller]

Hello Friend. Are you all right? It turns out that many scholars say that these passages of Josephus and Tacitus are forgeries. How can we prove that they are not? Thank you. God bless you.

[raduking]

Yes!

Tacitus just describes what Christians believe that doesn't make it a record about this Jesus guy's existence, and we do not have any 1st hand Josephus manuscript they are copies from people with a clear agenda: priests/monks whatever those were... and are mostly agreed as additions and forgeries.

[johntabuchi]

Wow that wasnt proof of jesus walk this earth 30 year after they wrote about him..

[philippedro]

The answer to the title question is...Yes.

[KDLemon]

Yeshua ben Pandera was the origin of the Jesus myth. His followers were expelled from Israel. Apollonius of Tyana was referring to him when he wrote the genuine Pauline Epistles and perhaps the original Gospel of Mark. Marcion of Sinope adopted these and wrote the Gospel of the Lord. Lucian of Samosta plagiarized Marcion's Gospel, added parts of the birth and passion narrative from some of the Gnostic Gospels that were becoming popular. Other sources for the Jesus myth were other regional god-men such as Horus and Mithra, plus elements from the life of Apollonius of Tyana. He also transformed Apollonius of Tyana into the Apostle Paul using his life and the Odyssey of Homer, The Pauline Epistles were popular, but Marcion's version of Jesus was altered. The author of Matthew did the same thing in the mid-second century. The Gospel of John could have been written by Damis or derived from other sources such as the Acts of PIlate.
The birth narrative is the most obvious myth, derived from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The passion story from the Gospel of Peter. Yeshua ben Pandera was also known as Jesus the Nazarene, who lived a century before the Biblical Jesus with some similarities in the life story. He may also have been known as the Essene Teacher of Righteousness and Honi the Circle drawer. The city of Nazareth probably didn't exist at the time of the Gospel Jesus, but perhaps late in the first century or early second century. This scenario explains why the Gospels were all written in Greek, why there was already established churches in Asia Minor, why the Book of Mark addresses Jesus the Nazarene in the Greek version and not Jesus of Nazareth. Why there was no contemporary historian that wrote about Jesus. Why the other claims of historical evidences of Jesus can be easily dismissed. The Jesus myth became more established with Emperor Constantine, with all heretical documents being destroyed or forged. Adaptations are periodically made to the myth even in relatively recent times.

[Chwo]

Nice attempt but the move failed to cling.

[lea-rwcb]

Jason bournes charactor was taken from a book so is he real

[johnyoutube]

Jesus is only a fictional character in the Bible, the real Jesus was you

[ch.]

If he is a myth than I am nuts..because he literally spoke to me...for the record..i am NOT nuts..

[keithkoster]

The problem is here that you went straight to the bible for your "sources", ( which are actually just stories if you do your research) to fit your narrative which is also circular. See, there's absolutely no evidence outside the bible that proves any of these stories are true or any of these people existed. Even if you did find out that someone existed or something seems like it fits into place a bible story doesn't give you you any factual, logical standing at all to say there for god, and if so, now prove it. Leave your bible home though, when you challenge to do so😉. Don't worry, I'll wait.