האם ישו בכלל היה קיים? הרב טוביה סינגר עונה

What reliable, historical, or non-biblical sources confirm Jesus existed as a real historical person? >> Non-Christian sources. All right. So, the earliest non-Christian source that we're confident is authentic is very, very late. So, there is a passage in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews written in about the year 94. It's called Testimonium Flavianum in book 18, section 3, paragraph 3 that supposedly is it is about Jesus. If you looked it up online, it would be about Jesus. But everyone knows that's a complete corruption. There's only an argument over whether there was an original relic that Josephus mentioned it and then it was corrupted to make it look really that that he was the Messiah and if you he's not really a man, he only appeared as a man. Everyone knows that's all fake. Now, I would say 70 years ago, the cuz this is the humanities. I just want to one brief mention this will come up. 75 years ago um 65% of scholars would say the whole thing is completely invented. The reason why is that it we never see any church father mention this until Eusebius, the historian of the church who lived in the 4th century. He was a who was a contemporary of the Council of Nicaea. So, we know for sure that this is invented. And we know who did it. There are some historians that want to be ecumenical say there was maybe a skeletal version of this. It's nonsense in my view and in Now, that view is just one statement, so you know this, that is in the humanities what the consensus is swings like a pendulum. Every 50 years the view just moves, okay? So So we have forget Josephus because that's an interpolation. It's a corruption that was added by the church. The The first non-Christian source about Jesus is 112, Pliny the Younger. Pliny the Younger we he's a certain and that is he's concerned with the problem that Christians at the time in the 2nd century Christianity was an illicit religion. It was not sanctioned by the Roman Empire. And the empire did not like Christians and certainly would It's not the Christians so much, but they would didn't like that Christians were gathering cuz you when you had a large gathering the empire got nervous. Why? They're afraid of an insurrection. And therefore Pliny the Younger is discussing this this issue. So that's no question authentic. That's 112. The second non-controversial source is the most important historian of the empire and that's Tacitus and that's 114. And Tacitus and none of these people are eyewitnesses to anything. But Tacitus is discussing Nero and his persecution of Christians. Very specifically when Nero burns down Rome in order to build it because he couldn't get a he couldn't go the normal way and he was insane. So he had to blame it he had to blame the arson on somebody and he pointed to Tacitus, who would have been alive. Tacitus was born in the 50s in Rome. So, he was a blue-blooded Roman. So, he said that Nero blamed it on Christians, followers of Christianity, and were burnt alive by Nero. So, that's our second source. So, we don't have any non-Christian source from the 1st century. Yeah, Christians want to say Josephus Josephus wasn't a contemporary. Josephus was born in the year 37. I'm going to say that again. Josephus was born in the year 37. >> So, after Jesus was crucified? >> Long after Jesus That's Pontius Pilate steps down from leadership in 37. That's all over. So, he's born, he's a baby. His mother gave birth to him in 37. So, he was not alive him in during that time. So, there's no contemporaneous sources that are non-Christian. That's correct. If you enjoyed this program, please like and [music] subscribe. >> I don't know love. I share my love >> [music] [singing]