Thứ Ba, 31 tháng 7, 2018

Waching daily Jul 31 2018

Follow me, please.

If you don't follow me, I'll cut your throat.

HAHAHAHA, I'm sorry.

Hehehehe.

I would tell you to watch the first part of this story first if you haven't but I will

take a wild guess that you are not going to do that even if I put the link in the description,

so here's a quick recap.

Basically...

My mom told my dad and me about this opportunity to participate in a commercial shoot for this company.

Artificial Intelligence is what they are creating

and they ask us to test the software that

they are making.

Driven by the whooping four-thousand-dollar pay,

we made it to the studio without any delay.

then we met this guy named Michael.

(played by SomethingelseYT) He told us we're invited cuz we represent Chinese.

My dad had to pee so he went to the other side

Now I'm not sure if I can continue 'cuz these might be classified

I changed, I waited, I finally walked into the studio.

I followed the direction, stood there like I'm on a game show.

They told me to ask the AI how to tie a tie, But I have to use Mandarin Chinese, thus...

怎么系领带?

The A.I. assistant...

Start with the backside of the tie facing away from you, the wide end is on the right

and the small end is on the left.

Wide end under the small end to the left.

Okay, I understand that this was only supposed to

be a prototype, but this voice was absolutely horrendous.

It was like...a real person talking?

But then the voice was so unnecessarily and heavily edited.

Nonetheless, the assistant answered all my question perfectly in complete sentences,

which was quite impressive and...smart! *smart assistant joke*

When the assistant finished talking, Michael asked me to share some thoughts regarding

the AI's performance.

In Chinese.

I don't know about y'all but it was seriously difficult to come up with some intelligent

responses on the spot.

Especially when you've stayed in the U.S. for five years straight without being exposed

to adequate Chinese material.

Your Chinese skill ACTUALLY DECAYS gradually throughout the years.

It's so SAD.

As the result, my responses were, hehe, 3rd-graders level at their best.

And my facial expressions... *sigh* Let's just move on.

Several questions later, Michael called for a break.

I was still not over the fact that the voice was being bizarre as frick, so I went to ask

Michael about it.

I mentioned that it sounded like a real person reading a paragraph instead of some sort of

text to speech program.

Michael just haha-ed and told me that they were indeed recordings, but the design of

the voice is still incomplete so don't worry about it.

Hmm, sure...

After the break was over, we finished the rest of the questions.

Thank you so much, Henry, now, slowly look to your left.

Then I saw my father, walking in, smirking.

What does that even mean- OH MY GOSH that voice was you?!

My dad just burst into laughter, as I realize the master plot.

Hahaha, I apologize.

Actually, I am not a CEO of an A.I. project.

I'm actually a film director and advertising manager, and you and your dad just participated

in a Gillette commercial shoot.

The theme was absolutely genius and sweet: "No artificial intelligence knows better about

you than your own father."

Michael told us that they were going to shoot a few more coverage shots of us communicating

about our feelings, a.k.a. fake shots, and the filming was finished with a big, joyful

hug.

(Which was also faked) pfff, yeah right Henry, quit your unrealistic

bull crap, vid or it didn't happen boi-

Oh.

HAHAHAHA what is that cringey smile??

*uncontrollable laughter*

After that interesting experience, five months have passed.

When it was finally close to Father's day, I discovered the published commercial on Gillette's

official Youtube channel.

Unfortunately, our clips didn't make it to the final cut.

I think they only showed the American, Mexican and Japanese fathers, and sons.

I showed the video to my dad and told him that we weren't so lucky.

儿子啊,人家没选咱们,是不是因为,我们当时忘了哭了?

Haha, yeah...

WE FORGOT TO CRY!

All three families that made it into the final cut have shown extremely heart-rending interactions

after the dramatic reveal.

Like, look, I get it, it's sentimental, and the goal is to trigger the audience's emotional

string of love toward their fathers.

Although it's a traditional and efficient technique, it feels somewhat unrealistic and

overused.

My opinion is that nobody should expect every single dad out there to share such the same

tender relationship with their sons.

One clear exception would be my father and me: we rather prefer reacting to the event

in a more cheerful and delighted mood than being sensitive and tear-jerking for the sake

of the audience.

An easy-going and casual relationship doesn't necessarily indicate that it's a careless

one.

Humans have multiple diverse emotions, thus love can be reflected from several elements

other than just tears of happiness.

If I was the producer, I would definitely show more varieties of reactions, as long

as the interaction shows an intimate connection.

I truly feel that adding people who display different types of emotions helps to make

the film more relatable and even more sympathetic than only showing the "wah-wah I love you

so much so waters must flow out from my vision holes."

Ugh, frickin marketing.

Now that I think about it, maybe it's only because YouTube

is blocked in China, and since they won't

reach most of the Chinese audience, it would be kinda pointless to include me and my dad.

Ugh, frickin Commun-

For more infomation >> Denied Father's Day Commercial (Ft. SomethingElseYT) - Duration: 7:37.

-------------------------------------------

El Ser ¿Qué es y como realizarlo? OJO! Satsang con Cesar - Duration: 36:17.

Ok, let's wait for a question. Otherwise we can keep quiet. Why not?

Anyway, I have only two things to say:

You are the Self.

If you want to know it, keep quiet.

That's all.

What's your name? - Ardi

Ardi

Good.

Estonia.

What to do?

If this doesn't make you happy, nothing will make you happy. Right?

What to do? As I say. Can't help it. Right?

Comes in the package.

More quiet the mind is, more happy you feel.

Less you think, more happy you feel.

Any question from Kerala?

No?

Don't feel shy.

[Assistant 1] How do you function in the world if you don't think?

Ahhh?! hahaha.

What is the world?

I don't see any world.

You use your mind

for the practicality of daily life.

It switches on automatically. Like now.

Once the job is done

Mind keeps quiet.

The mind becomes like your PA (personal assistant).

Comes to help you out and then it keeps quiet.

Comes to your rescue. Right?

And when it finishes it keeps quiet.

We don't lose our memory

knowledge or anything like that.

The mind is the Self.

It is perceived to be a separate entity. Right?

Everything is the Self.

The world is the Self.

The mind is the Self.

Consciousness is the Self.

The Self alone IS.

When the mind is quiet

Then we realise that.

That there is no world.

There is no mind. There is no body.

There is no consciousness.

There is only the Self.

So, the compulsive thinking stops.

The tendency of the mind to get externalized through the senses

and grab an object and think about it positively or negatively

wanting it or not wanting it. This stops.

Actually for safety reasons we use the mind.

Otherwise people think that we are coo coo.

If somebody asks me "who are you?"

The honest question (answer) would be "I don't know".

If I say this to the police or the migration office...

"Who are you?". I say "I don't know".

Maybe in India no problem. Right?

If in India I say "I don't know" they would make an ashram around me and devotees coming.

"He is an enlightened being. He doesn't know who he is."

There is mind as ego, which is the I-thought.

The idea "I am the body".

That is the I-thought.

If we trace back from where this thought is coming from

it disappears.

So, the thought "I am the body" disappears.

And what remains is what I am.

And that I don't know.

I am that but I don't know what is that.

I know that I am. What? I don't know.

How? I don't know. And I will never know.

And that makes me very happy.

Is not knowing. Right?

Is simply being.

The "I am the body" idea disappears.

The idea that oneself is limited to the body disappears.

The mind comes back.

Bus the identity with it

The belief that I am what I think means "I am the body". Right?

Disappears.

Somebody asks me "hello. How are you? Nice to meet you"

And I say "hello, nice to meet you. I am Cesar." I say "I am the body", but I know I am lying.

And I am laughing inside.

Like an actor.

I am Romeo

and she is Juliet.

I know I am acting.

That's all.

So you act. You do your best.

As if you want to win an Oscar.

That's all.

We no longer believe that we are what we think. That's all.

That anything is what we think.

I can say, "he is Peter from Germany"

Just for a change.

But I know that he is not what I think.

He is the Self.

So I don't know what I am talking about.

Even if I say "he is a man".

I don't know what he is.

It's my Self sitting there.

This is how we function.

So we don't become mindless.

Mind is there, knowledge is there, memory is there.

Everything is there.

What to do.

Happy with the answer?

[Assistant 1]: How to localize the consciousness?

Impossible.

Consciousness is just the capacity to cognize.

The Self is that which is conscious.

The Self is beyond and prior to consciousness.

Sat is prior to Chit.

In deep sleep consciousness is sleeping.

Deep sleep is a state of consciousness. Right?

So is the awakened state and dream state.

So in deep sleep

I am not conscious of anything.

I am not even conscious that I am.

And yet I am.

So consciousness is at rest.

In its u unmanifested state.

Latent potential state.

Is basically potential creative energy.

When that energy wakes up

The first thing that we feel

that we know

is "I am".

When consciousness wakes up

then first thing is that I am conscious that I am.

There is consciousness of existence.

Consciousness of being.

And then there is body consciousness.

And then there is world consciousness.

Then identity with the body.

I-thought comes.

And the I am "becomes"

an apparent individual self.

That is the Jiva, the individual.

It's a thought.

It doesn't exist.

This is why it's called Mithya.

It's a myth; it doesn't actually exist.

It seems that it is actually there. Right?

Mental activity

gives the impression

that there is actually somebody here.

That there is a person talking now.

That there is a separate individual body or a separate individual soul.

If you are materialistic, then I am the body.

Otherwise I am an individual soul in the body.

Nothing is there.

This body is empty.

This is why you are told, "see from where the thoughts are coming from".

What is the person?/Who is the person? "I".

That is a thought.

You see from where the thought is coming from.

The thought disappears.

Means the person disappears.

Then, what is the person?

And if the person disappears

Who knows "person disappears"?

"I"

Then I am not the person.

I am not the individual. I am not the mind.

I am the Self.

Knock.

Who is there?

And you will find nobody.

I didn't find the mind. I looked for it but...

so far...

When people ask me "I want to control the mind"

And I say "what are you talking about?"

What is mind?

There is no such thing as mind.

It's only thought.

It's not a self.

It's not an organ

The mind doesn't think.

Not even "the mind can think".

The mind IS thought.

There is no entity called mind that thinks.

So thoughts do not think themselves.

They arise from the Self.

So the I-thought is a projection of the Self.

Projection-reflection.

It's a manifestation of the Self.

The Self created the apparent individual being.

Is part of the illusion.

So consciousness is basically

functioning.

Is the capacity of cognition.

Sometimes in a potential state. Sometimes manifested.

When there is consciousness

there is the knowledge "I am".

If there is no consciousness

there is no knowledge "I am"

but the "I am" is present"

Meaning by "I am", the Self.

Happy with the answer?

(consciousness) is the capacity cognition. Right?

Is basically energy-light.

Animating the body, illumining all.

But the Self is beyond light.

Is neither light nor darkness.

Nobody can say anything about the Self.

It IS.

...and yet we can know that it IS.

How? It is as it is.

That is why it is called That.

Who are you? I am That.

That means "I don't know". That...I don't know.

It has no name, no form.

No qualities, no attributes.

Is nameless, formless.

and Silence itself.

It's reality, nameless, formless.

It's natural state, Silence.

What to do.

Yes.

Question still is there?

[Assistant 2] It's about yesterday: I tried to practice this.

It's still a kind of effort that I make.

To try to stay still.

That is a trap.

When the mind is still don't try to keep it still because it is no longer still.

Mind is basically consciousness, basically cognition.

But apparently it seems to be that it is a cognizer.

So when the mind is quiet

that is the sense of individuality in it's most subtle refined state.

But at some point

you realize that it can exist only because I see it.

Right?

Then I am not

the individual "I".

Then the I-thought disappears.

Meaning the idea that I am this individual self.

This is why it is also called "the loss of the sense of individuality".

So when the thoughts arise

just simply see from where they come from.

And it stops.

That's all.

You are already witnessing.

When the thoughts arise you are already witnessing.

So there is no effort to witness.

Just remove the thought.

Thought arises. Where does it come from?

You don't have to rise the question.

You just bring your attention there.

Thought disappears. Mind is quiet.

And yet it is fully awake.

Nobody can go further than that.

The realization "I am not the quiet mind"

That is the I-thought.

The mind is free from thoughts.

Only the I-thought is there.

But at some point becomes obvious.

I can't be the I-thought.

Because I am conscious of the I-thought.

So I am beyond that.

I am even beyond consciousness.

Right?

Are you following? - Yes.

As soon as the mind is quiet no more effort is required.

It is counter-productive.

Let the mind get dissolved

In its place of origin;

it is your Self.

When people try to keep quiet

they are not quiet.

They are trying something. Right?

Then "who is trying to keep quiet?"

"Who wants to prolong that state?"

And it stops again.

Mind is quiet...

Forget about the body.

Leave the body alone.

Let it move as it pleases.

Don't try to sit in a particular...

Otherwise there will be fight between the body and the mind.

The body itches.

But you don't want to scratch your nose because...

because you are meditating. You are concentrated.

So what are you doing?

Reinforcing "I am the body".

"I am the meditator"

Relax. Leave the body alone.

Just see whose body is it.

Happy with the answer?

The practical thinking

will happen by itself also.

But you don't have to worry about that neither.

And then you begin to notice "my God, the body is going on auto-pilot.

The mind is going on auto-pilot.

Consciousness is going on auto-pilot.

I am just doing nothing

I am just there witnessing

how everything happens automatically.

Effortlessly.

And the witness is also effortless.

So apart from the thought "I am doing"

there is no effort.

If this doesn't make you happy I don't know what else...

Right?

It's like, you go to the closet

and then "What am I wearing today?"

and you see all that happens automatically.

blue shorts and yellow top.

If you care about that.

All this is happening automatically.

Effortlessly.

And is just reflected and projected back to yourself.

And you leave it alone.

What happened? Too much sun? [Assistant 3] Yes

Thoughts disappear, leave it.

Otherwise you create tension

stress and fear also.

Thoughts disappear.

Means you, he, she, it.

Then the I thought remains standing alone.

This one eventually disappears.

And that's it.

Yes?

[Assistant 4] (Inaudible)

Yes

You are always the witness of the mind.

Always. Effortlessly.

Witnessing cannot be practiced.

It can not be done.

Is what you are.

Because of the identity with the body

Apparently there is somebody witnessing.

But "The witness" also disappears.

And witnessing alone remains.

Experiencing as being.

Is there.

It doesn't say "I am the witness".

It IS the witness.

It doesn't say "I".

Even though the thought "I" emerges from there.

'Cause the witness is the source.

and the substratum

where the I-thought exists.

And it's place of dissolution.

Emerges from the witness

exists in the witness for some time

And it disappears in the witness.

So the idea is to keep the mind

as quiet as it was in deep sleep.

and yet fully awake.

Not sleeping.

[Assistant 5] The Self is manifesting as an individual.

The Self never gets manifested.

It never comes into existence.

The Self is never here.

Some people say that it is the unmanifested.

There is only one book

one of the Upanishads

that says "the Self is even beyond the unmanifest".

This is manifest now

Before it was unmanifest.

So unmanifest...

[Assistant] You are trying to define the Self now.

Impossible

We can't. We can't define the Self.

Who is going to define the Self.

Are there two Selfs?

One that is going to define the other.

The Self is beyond definition.

Nobody will ever be able to speak about the Self.

Ever. Impossible.

Not even the Self knows...

The Self knows that it IS.

But it will never know what it is.

It's invisible to itself.

Is undefinable even to itself.

Sweating there.

What was the question? Sorry.

If the world is manifest now

it was unmanifested before.

So unmanifest is form.

So the unmanifest must exist somewhere.

That is the Self.

So it is beyond even the unmanifest.

I think this is a dialog between Yama and Nachiketa.

One of the Upanishads.

He says, "now my dear son I will talk to you about what is beyond even the unmanifest".

So consciousness is now manifested.

In deep sleep is in the unmanifest state.

But to speak about the unmanifest there must be a witness.

Right?

So the witness is beyond even the unmanifest.

So the world is not here.

This is a manifestation

of the Self.

But the Self as such can not get manifested because that means

that it wasn't before

and now it is.

So what isn't

cannot come into existence.

What doesn't exist

can not come into existence.

This is why they say "Brahman was alone"

And then within Brahman a movement begins.

That means that Brahman is neither moving or not moving.

Some people say it is the unmovable.

But is neither moving nor not-moving.

Nobody can say it IS.

So there was an energy there

within Brahman already there.

So it already existed. It was just in a latent potential unmanifest state.

The universes also existed already

in a latent unmanifested state.

This is why the Vedas says "the creation doesn't exist".

Because it was always there.

Whether it is perceivable

or not perceivable

it still is there.

So they say an energy movement begins.

[Assistant 5] But at certain times is (inaudible)

Is only for the ego, the individual. Yes.

When the individual disappears

mean when the mind is quiet

what is the idea of time and space?

It doesn't exist.

[Assistant 6]: Neither now.

Not even the now. Because the now must exist for someone.

So neither past nor future nor present.

Only the Self.

If there is present

for whom is the present?

The present is the object. There must be a subject.

But the object, present time, is a thought.

And the subject is also a thought.

For whom is the present? For me.

Then who is this "me".

If we enquire it disappears.

Then the present can not stand.

[Assistant] It's eternal.

Forget about that. This is a new-age stuff.

"The eternal present". It's very romantic.

It's a romantic concept of...

"The eternal".

Very romantic, but...

The truth is "I don't know".

Nobody knows.

"I know" means two.

I know something.

And that doesn't exist.

The Self doesn't know anything.

It simply IS.

What? What isn't the Self.

That's the question.

The best thing that we can do

is to forget all.

Forget the Vedas. Forget everything.

That is relative knowledge.

Is relatively real.

It has relative existence.

Is relatively important.

Suppose that you forget everything now.

Still you Are.

So you exist with or without knowledge. Isn't that great?

Right? Everything disappears in deep sleep.

And yet you exist.

Even if you don't know that you exist.

Still you exist.

Isn't that great? I think it's quite...

Again, if that doesn't make you happy I don't know what.

You can forget everything.

But you can't forget that you are.

This you can't forget.

Well, you can but...

But still you Are.

Even if you forget still you Are.

Even if you forget you are the Self, still you are the Self.

Even if you forget that you are immortal, still you are immortal.

Isn't that great?

That even if you think that something is happening to you

nothing is happening to you.

I'm telling you. For me is fantastic.

For more infomation >> El Ser ¿Qué es y como realizarlo? OJO! Satsang con Cesar - Duration: 36:17.

-------------------------------------------

Tödliche Gefahr: YouTube-Star Unge könnte nachts ersticken! - Duration: 1:05.

For more infomation >> Tödliche Gefahr: YouTube-Star Unge könnte nachts ersticken! - Duration: 1:05.

-------------------------------------------

BİN ABONE OLMANIN EN KOLAY YÖNTEMİ - YOUTUBE ABONE ARTTIRMA - Duration: 5:56.

For more infomation >> BİN ABONE OLMANIN EN KOLAY YÖNTEMİ - YOUTUBE ABONE ARTTIRMA - Duration: 5:56.

-------------------------------------------

[MMD/DL] Effects tutorial 2.0 ( subtitles in spanish) - Duration: 20:02.

For more infomation >> [MMD/DL] Effects tutorial 2.0 ( subtitles in spanish) - Duration: 20:02.

-------------------------------------------

What evidence is there for Jesus outside the Bible? - Duration: 7:45.

Hello and welcome to the Thinking Believer!

We're gonna talk today about evidence for Jesus outside the Bible.

In fact, we're gonna talk about written evidence for Jesus that is not just outside the Bible,

but also wasn't written by Christian authors. We're gonna blaze through the nine non-Christian

authors who wrote about Jesus in the first one hundred fifty years after his death whose works still survive

In the interest of giving a good overview today, we're not gonna go into much detail on these,

but I'll include a few tidbits.

There's a lot more that could be said about each of them. And for at least some

of them we'll probably circle back to talk in more detail in the future.

So feel free to subscribe or let me know in the comments if you're interested in that specifically.

We're gonna go through roughly from least important to most important.

Down here at number nine we have Thallus who is probably the earliest of

the surviving non-christian sources to mention Jesus.

Sextus Julius Africanus, who has an awesome name, quotes him and says Thallus

argued that the darkness that came over the world when Jesus was crucified was due to an eclipse.

Coming in at number eight is Phlegon who sounds like he belongs in

the pharmacy next to Mucinex. Phlegon is also quoted by Africanus with regard to

an eclipse during the reign of Tiberius. He's also quoted by a church father

named Origen in the second half of the second century saying Phlegon ascribed

to Jesus and knowledge of future events but also testified that the result

corresponded to his predictions. In another place Origen quotes Phlegon

saying Jesus while alive was of no assistance to himself

but that he arose after death and exhibited the marks of his punishment

and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.

At number seven we have Suetonius who was a well-respected Roman and historian who says

"because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus,

Claudius expelled them from Rome". There's debate over whether Chrestus refers to Jesus

because he refers to him as Chrestus but this wouldn't be the only example of

a Roman historian thinking that Christ was a name, Chrestus, and not a title, Christ.

We do know from Acts 18 the Jews were kicked out of Rome by Claudius as Suetonius mentions here

At number six we have Mara Bar Serapion

who doesn't refer to Jesus by name but who talks about how the Jews killed their

"wise king". And it's obvious from the context that he's talking about a first-century figure.

He also says the wise king lived on and the teachings he enacted.

At five and four we have two satirists with a low opinion

of Christians. Though to be honest almost all of these authors had a low opinion

of Christians who they regarded as foolish, because they believed in the

resurrection, or dangerous and obscene, because they wouldn't worship roman gods.

The fact that these were hostile sources goes a long way to confirm their authenticity actually.

Lucian of Samosata is the first of these two and says

that the Christians worshipped a man who they viewed as a lawgiver and who was a

crucified sage. He also says that Christians didn't care about death

because of their belief in life after death and that they despised worldly goods.

I mean they didn't care about worldly goods is basically what he means,

in fancy talk.

Celsus says Jesus came from a village in Judea and was the son

of a poor Jewess. He possessed powers which Celsus says he got while in Egypt.

And with these powers he basically pretended to be God. He gave himself out to be God

In the third spot we have Pliny of the Younger who is a Roman

senator and a friend of the Emperor and is coincidentally also our best source

on the eruption of Vesuvius , if you watched the video from last week.

[shamless plug]

He writes to the Emperor asking what to do with all the Christians who sing hymns

as Christ as to God, as to a god, and who refused to worship the Roman gods.

He thinks he should probably kill them but he's not sure. He also talks about the

high moral code of the Christians and that they met regularly for worship.

Josephus, our number two, was born in Jerusalem just a few years after the crucifixion.

Which puts him in close proximity to a lot of eyewitnesses.

He mentions Jesus in two different places but unfortunately one of the two

passages referring to Jesus was corrupted by a Christian scribe, a couple centuries later,

who embellished what Josephus had said about Jesus.

So it's hard to know what was original to Josephus. We'll probably do a video in

more detail on the first reference to Jesus and what, if anything, we can learn

from it sometime in the future. Josephus also just had a fascinating

life and so he might dive into that too. But for now we'll just focus on the

second mention which fortunately is considered by most scholars to be uncorrupted.

It talks about the death of James the Just, who is described as the

brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.

And in the number one slot we have Tacitus. One of the best respected Roman

historians and a source for a lot of what we know about ancient Rome.

He writes that the Emperor Nero tortured Christians, a group named after their

leader Christus, which is another example of Roman historian mistaking the

title, Christ, for a name Christus, and that this leader of the Christians,

Christ, was put to death by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

So altogether there are nine non-Christian authors who wrote about Jesus in the first 150 years after his death

To the modern mind that might not seem like very much by

contemporary standards, but for a point of reference let's look at Tiberius Caesar,

who was Emperor when Jesus lived. He was probably most famous man in the

world alive at the time and within the first 150 years after his death there

were nine non-Christian authors who wrote about him. So excluding Christian

authors there are nine sources for Jesus and nine for Tiberius. Now the non-Christian

sources for Tiberius are admittedly better than the non-Christian sources for Jesus.

But let's look at it this way, if you include Christian sources, that

gives Tiberius one more mention in the first 150 years, a mention in Luke,

bringing his total number of authors to ten. If you include Christian sources for

Jesus there are 42 references to him in the first 150 years. That includes the

nine secular authors that we talked about a minute ago, nine writers in the

New Testament, 20 Christians who didn't write any of the books of the Bible but

wrote in the first 150 years, and four heretical authors who didn't hold

Orthodox Christian beliefs. That gives Jesus four times as much documentary

evidence as Tiberius and some sources of incredibly high quality.

So Jesus has a huge amount of documentary evidence.

So a couple disclaimers:

I am NOT saying that there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Tiberius.

There are other kinds of evidence for Tiberius that we don't have

for Jesus because of Tiberius' position. For example we have coins

minted with Tiberius' picture on them, there are statues of Tiberius,

there's some inscriptions. Which is what you'd expect

from the emperor of the largest empire on earth. Jesus, the rabbi from Judea,

wasn't minting a lot of coins. The second disclaimer is that this does not prove

that Jesus was the son of God or that he rose from the dead or performed miracles.

What this does it does illustrate is just how much written evidence we

actually have for Jesus by ancient standards. If Tiberius really existed,

which he did, and was one of the best known people in the world, which he was,

and he only has ten authors who mentioned him in the first 150 years

after his death then we should have no problem believing that Jesus, who was

mentioned by just as many secular sources and four times as many sources,

including Christians, is also a historical figure. Among tenured

historians, Jesus is pretty much universally considered to be a

historical figure and I only say pretty much because I don't want someone to

pull out the singular example to the contrary. I really am almost certain that

it's unanimously believed, among tenured historians. Now just because all the

experts on a subject are in agreement doesn't necessarily make them right, but

if someone wants to argue that Jesus never existed they have got, frankly, a big hill to climb.

If you enjoy learning about this stuff as much as I do please

stick around. I'm trying to get new videos out weekly but if it's too hard

to remember to check back in, you can subscribe or set up notifications for

when I release new content. And, of course, you can tell me all the ways I'm wrong

in the comments section below, or if you've got something friendly to say I'm

told that's allowed there too. Have a great day and I will see you next week.

For more infomation >> What evidence is there for Jesus outside the Bible? - Duration: 7:45.

-------------------------------------------

Snøw- Sunset/ Sunrise (Original) - Duration: 1:11.

You say that you love me, do you really mean that

I'm not sure, but I think you do I say that I love you, do I really mean that

I'm not sure but I think I do All we do is fight, fight, fight 'till the

night time time And we're, sick and tired of it

All you is whine, whine, whine, while I sigh, sigh, sigh,

And we're, sick and tired of it But we both stay 'till the sunrise, coz

We'll never leave each other's sides No (repeat)

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét