Debunking Christian Apologetics: The "Scholars Say Shuffle"

[mjt532]

I haven't heard the interview of Ehrman mentioned, but I have heard him interviewed a couple of times (I think it's even in his books) that one reason he believes in a historical Jesus is the crucifixion...the gospel writers wouldn't make up a story of Jesus seemingly failing in his mission.

[perez85tkd]

wow you're stupid

[KevZen2000]

Bart Ehrman is a good person to see, for the inconsistencies in the bible.

[munktopia6]

"don't argue with an idiot, he'll just drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Don't take this as argumentative, but my father was cured of liver cancer at a Christian "miracle service" through a man he had never met but the man somehow knew he had liver cancer and called him to the front of the church. I know you'd like to say he dreamed it all up, but he saw 2 different doctors less then a week before going to it and then 2 weeks after it saw them again. He had a new liver

[guineapiggyman]

how is josephus, among others, not a reliable record? he had no conflict of interest in christ...

[purbrookian]

My take on the question: like Beowulf and Alfred and Arthur and William Tell and Robin Hood and many others, JC was probably an amalgam - a composite of several peripatetic preachers.

[Qulabican]

My people culture, we believe earth and air(Oxygen), we call earth is father, we call air is mother, we call sun is sister, we call moon is brother, we believe the true god but we did not worship every week, my people worship one a year, but no true worship, we call new year, we pay nothing for earth and air. We can touch earth, we can hold air. My people god did not choose any body.

[TheMrDeist]

That is a huge issue. Most historical scholars agree that there was a historic Jesus, but there are huge divides as to what his life was really like (separating the man from the myth). The biggest problems (which you probably addressed in other videos) is that Jesus was presented by secular historians in the second century, but they were referring to him only in relation to the Christian movement (which means that reports of Jesus are hearsay of the Christians).

[z2153]

I think you are misleading people when you say you don't believe Jesus existed. I think you mean to say that THE Jesus that did miracles and died for our sins never existed, but it is possible for a man called Jesus to have existed.

The proof can come from the bible. There doesn't seem to be much debate that Galatians was written by Paul. In Galatians chapter 1 verse 19. Paul writes that he met the brother of Jesus, which is James. So if James the brother existed then Jesus existed.

[DeistPaladin]

I guess we need to define what we mean by "Jesus".

My definition is where we slap the label "based on a true story" on the Gospels. This is not to say it all needs to be true but enough for that label.

Best case scenario I can map out is that Jesus was an insignificant wandering rabbi that no one noticed during his lifetime and never wrote down anything about his teachings and only generations later did anyone remember him. That Jesus bears no resemblance to the Gospel character.

[z2153]

@DeistPaladin .. I would be interested in hearing your views on who is the historical Jesus in more detail. I think he was a day laborer who saw the religious hypocrisy and polictical abuses of the day and ended up getting executed for causing trouble for the powers to be.  Kinda like the Glen Beck of his day :)

[DeistPaladin]

Funny you should say that. This was my view of Jesus until the last several years. Sort of a "Road to El Dorado" kind of story except with a not so happy ending for Miguel.

It wasn't until I did a search for what secular history has to say about Jesus that I began to realize that my fantasy view of Jesus is every bit as unsupported as the Christian's.

If Jesus did exist, we'll never know the true story.

[z2153]

There are some very good classes found on Youtube. They are from Yale Courses and the one called The Historical Jesus. They concur that we'll never know the true story, but they give a process to decide what parts are true and what were later additions. It is 52 minutes long, but if you watch the last 10 minutes he discusses who he thinks the historical Jesus was.

[DeistPaladin]

I can't imagine how you'd answer the questions which parts of the Gospels are true, since there are no accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible. Even Tacitus, the most solid piece of historical evidence (relatively speaking), is late, oblique and doesn't even mention the name of the Christ.

[MrMatthew4892]

you say that we are conditioned to believing that Jesus is an historical figure, but why should I dought it when there are many past writings that support this claim?

[lespauls61]

@MrMatthew4892 There are no past writings that the point. The bible isnt a historical record of events. ITs a book of theology. There are no contemporary writings of any guy named jesus from the early first century. You may find writings of other messiahs though.

[SabbathFreak25]

@MrMatthew4892 3.Many people around the NT time were writing about their era. Many people could have contested the writings. If people knew the NT writings were inaccurate, it would quickly be pointed out. No book contested with the NT.

[DeistPaladin]

I just love the double standard used by apologists regarding the historical Jesus.

When asked why we have no contemporary records of Jesus, we're told it's unreasonable to have such expectations.

When questioning the NT's reliability as a "historical document", we're told the era was filled with commando fact checkers that would have descended on any rabbis like a team of ninjas to cry "false".

To say nothing of how critical writings about Christianity were destroyed as heretical.

[MrMatthew4892]

just to let you know, i wrote that last comment, i was on a diffrent account

[jimbrown257]

The former fundies are often the best anti-apologetics because they know their stuff and know the ideology of the fundie. Dan Barker, Bart Ehrman (sp?) and Matt Dilahunty (sp?) & Tracie Harris (both of the Atheist Experience) do some excellent debunking.

Oh, NonStampCollector is also a recovering theist who does excellent work.

In fact, your style DP is quite like that of an ex-apologist that I would have thought you were one. Btw, that is a compliment.

[jimbrown257]

DP, do you know if Dan Baker believes there existed a historical Jesus?

I saw a debate between Baker and one of the bigger apologetics where the apologist used the laughably predictable "empty tomb" card. He said that Baker lost the debate because he had no alternate hypothesis for the empty tomb. It was, of course, ridiculous because Baker doubted the whole story (though I'm not sure about doubting historical Jesus).

[TUNIT42]

there are more copies of the gospels within 100 years of Jesus' life then there are of any other ancient text. how would this happen if someone "made it up?" why would there be such hatred by the Roman Empire of a nonfiction book club? Nero's fire that he blamed on Christians? such a strong following for being only 31 years removed from the death of Jesus, when they could still find the living friends of Jesus himself alive in Jerusalem and ask if he was real themselves.

[reprise92]

Would you mind giving me the link to the video for the interview with Bart Ehrman? I couldn't find it in the archive on the website. Thanks John.

[ikvsabre]

I tend to believe there was a historical figure that Jesus is based on (although I don't believe the supernatural claims); note that I'm also not saying that any of the events of the Bible happened at all. The reasoning is simple: the philosophy attributed to Jesus had to have been created by one or more persons. if it was one person, then that person is "Jesus". Of course, it's possible that the philosophy was created by multiple persons and that Jesus is an amalgom of their ideas.

[okpl7]

No need to actually deal with the scholarship on this issue. We'll just listen to a washed up old man from kentucky.

I am stunned that you would ignore what people far more educated, far more intelligent, far more well read than you would argue and conclude.

There is a reason that you are in the extreme, and this needs to be emphasized, the EXTREME minority on this issue.

I suggest a more sober study of these issues.

Its obvious why you spend ALL THIS TIME on these issues--- BIGOTRY.

[DeistPaladin]

I just love it when Christians whine about my supposed bigotry, considering how this has been one of the by-products of Christianity.

You obviously didn't listen to the video. I don't care if you're Richard Dawkins himself.  You have to show me evidence for why I should believe something. "Shut up, I'm the expert and I say so" isn't a reason to think something true.

[Glacies12]

Of course Jebus exists, the Easter bunny told me so, and we can believe him, because Santa told me he was truthful.

[Abradacamera]

You say you need evidence to be convinced of something, so why then do you believe in god?

[paulhallart]

These skeptics; understandable. There is the mention of "a great falling away" during a time of humanity's catharsis in which a genetic dysfunctionality in the human mind causes a situation where the pollution is so horrendous that no organic life would survive on the Earth. The evidence of the historical Jesus may have been expunged as is the case with Joseph and so on. The outcry from Cumran in the D.Sea Scrolls against Jesus, the pacific mesiah may serve as indirect evidence... and so on...

[Benghazison]

Hey John ! Where are all the so-called atheists and deists? i haven't heard their answers to my questions about the Leprosy issue. is it the answer my friend is blowing in the wind? still waiting to hear the answers, so May God's gift of Reason Light Your way.

[DeistPaladin]

We already answered it. 1. There IS a cure. 2. Why did they pick this disease? Because it was a problem for them. 3. Your suggestion that it's a "sign" from God is deeply bizarre.

Next?

[ditdeb]

1.First John there is no cure for leprosy its incurable disease, 2ndly if it was not a sign then you explain to us as deist why it was a choice by the Quran & Bible as a miracle of Jesus, why the Quran nor Bible never picked any other disease as miracle instead of leprosy, as you know there were many ancient diseases at that time? Why leprosy was the only problem?

[DeistPaladin]

First, yeah really, there is a cure. It's expensive but it exists. Second, the Bible has Jesus curing many injuries and diseases, such as epilepsy. Thirdly, why the Koran choose leprosy probably has to do with the fact that it was a problem in their area.

Next?

[ditdeb]

First of all there is no cure. 2nd there is only treatment with MTD to slow down the disease. .. there well never be an elimination to it . If you know of a cure please help those that suffer with it and show them where to find that expensive cure.. Name of Dr. where to go.. etc. So u are saying that it was the ONLY incurable disease in that area at that time? Again you fail by using the word probably.

[4312ton]

"First of all there is no cure"

Leprosy is a bacterial infection that responds to a mix of antibiotics. Properly treated individuals will not have a recurrence and are no longer infectious. This is common medical knowledge. Ask your doctor.

What is your definition of a cure? The original tissue damage of the infection remains!

[Benghazison]

your funny words, probably, maybe, coincidence..etc theres no cure to leprosy, can you give details of hospitals and doctors those who are able to (cure) leprosy?But For sure talk is cheap.Why leprosy was chosen as a miracle of Jesus pbuh in the Quran? Why leprosy is still existed? Why science incapable to cure it? Amazing how! that science knows well what the cause of leprosy but unable to eliminate it.Sorry you failed again.PROBABLY leprosy was the only disease in that area at that era lol

[Lohitaksha]

Yes, Benghazison, there is a cure.

I worked in a leprosy clinic for 13 years. Take my word for it: there really is a cure for leprosy.

It's caused by a bacterium, readily killed by Dapsone, Minocin, Clofazimine, etc.

Leprosy (Hansen's Disease) is treated nowadays on an out-patient basis.

As the older generation of lepers dies off, leprosy colonies all over the world are shutting down.

Look it up yourself under "Hansen's Disease"

[Benghazison]

Sorry sir...i know some leprosy cases here in my home town and one of the goes to American and Japan every year for treatment but with no hope. any way can you please give me all details of doctors and hospitals those are able to (cure) leprosy, i would appreciate that.Sallam

[Benghazison]

John! i find it really funny that wherever you're on line at Youtube i am able to comment when you're not on line i cant comment ? i have been trying to send my post while you're not on line this page wouldn't accept my posts but when you loged in i can post ?????. youtube acts funny some times. sallam

[DeistPaladin]

You know, I have the same problem at time. Is this where you click "post comment" and it acts like it's going to accept but then it doesn't seem to ever complete?

YouTube has some kind of anti-spam device that prevents you from including urls in your post. Something tells me their software is too sensitive and gets some false positives. Just my guess.

[ditdeb]

I know full well of the other diseases..The point with leprosy is that at that time it was consider contagious hence the "leper colonies" and the way they looked at it..no one would touch a leper so by laying of the hands he was showing his compassion for human and showing that it is not a transferable disease.

[DeistPaladin]

So which is more likely?

That your god who wants to be worshiped can't find a better way to communicate than include some sort of obtuse sign in scripture (which I still don't get even after you've explained it)?

Or that your godman/prophet is said to have confronted a scary disease and showed bravery in the process, since many others who lived at the time would be afraid to even touch a leper?

Seriously, your "proof" is so lame I can't believe you're still trying to use it.

[Benghazison]

Many so-called Christians believe that Jesus's miracle was not the cure itself,but it was the method or the mechanism he used to cure leprosy that was his miracle,it's funny how the so-called Luke17 stating that (Jesus) was not sure about curing leprosy,as he was doubtful about his ability in curing it,the so-called Luke 17 mentioned that Jesus sent 10 men to be seen by a priest and then he was asking the one who was cleansed "Were not all ten cleansed?but the holy Quran statement is clean cut.

[4312ton]

"but the holy Quran statement is clean cut."

That Quran statement was taken from the NT. In fact, a lot of the Quran is plagiarized from the Bible. The rambling stories of the Quaran do not make any more sense then those of the Bible.

[Benghazison]

sorry you're so wrong,i had a long argument with John about the copy and paste game,John believes that the Quran was (invented) by our prophet pbuh and next day the Quran is a copy of the so-called OT.plz produce the version of the so-called BibleS that the Quran copied, I need the original version of that myth and it's date of release?when you find it come and tell me about copying stuff.Why leprosy was chosen as a miracle of Jesus pbuh in the Quran?May God's gift of reason light your way.

[4312ton]

"I need the original version of that myth"

It's called the "Old Testament" and it was released a few thousand years ago. Maybe you can get a copy in Libya. Once you read it you will realize that Mohamed must have had a copy and used it. But I don't suppose they teach Bible 101 in Libya...

[DeistPaladin]

Sorry 43, I should have warned you.

You may want to be seated and put away any drinks when you read this.

Ready?

Beng thinks the OT was copied from the Quran.

Seriously.

[4312ton]

Thanks John.

That would explain Bengs' strange responses. I wonder how widespread that belief is in the Muslim world.

Never underestimate the power of ignorance.

[Benghazison]

43 you're proving to me what's ignorance is,let me correct your funny idea,you need to know that most Muslims believe that the so-called OT and NT are the corrupted books of God.plz when you find that specific original version of the so-called BibleS and its date of release which you claim our prophet (copied)i would seriously accept your funny claims,but when i say the so-called BibleS copied the Quran,i can produce the only one single preserved book for 1500 years,it's the holy Quran.

[Benghazison]

I have 7 versions of the so-called BibleS and recently i got the so-called Bernaba Bible another funny myth which i am still reading.you need to know that the so-called BibleS include the so-called Torah are freely available in Libya you can pick it up from the so-called churches or any library. let me ask you why do we have only one signal Quran which have been preserved for 1500 years?while the so-called BibleS include the so-called OT are too many? when you find an answer tell me about.

[DeistPaladin]

You see, Beng, here's why you come across as a nut.

We don't disagree that the Bible isn't the Word of God, that it hasn't changed or that there aren't many translations.

However, the basic story did exist prior to the Quran. Google "Dead Sea Scrolls". When you say the OT copied the Quran, you lose massive credibility.

[Benghazison]

Youre trying hard to convince yourself with a comical concept that the release and production of the so-called BibleS versions stopped just 1 second before Islam,meanwhile denying 1500 years of the so-called BibleS enormous production and release,trying to tell us that the so-called BibleS authors never released any of their myths after Islam.what a logic of absurd!Prove that the authors of the so-called BibleS never released any versions after Islam?burden of proofs are on your shoulders.

[DeistPaladin]

What an impressive strawman.

Are you seriously suggesting that I'm a defender of the Bible? Or is this the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy? If I'm attacking the Quran, I must be defending the Bible? You know better.

In any event, google the Dead Sea Scrolls like I suggested and I think you'll be more than satisfied to know that the myths of Adam and the garden of Eden predated the Quran.

[Benghazison]

answer my questions don't tell me stories.prove that the authors of the so-called BibleS never released any versions after Islam?did the authors of the so-called BibleS study the Quran or not? as long as you believe that the so-called BibleS are nothing but a myths then why you're trying to legitimize the so-called (Dead Sea Scrolls) as an original piece of history related to a mythology while you know well it's nothing but a piece of trash? what a funny logic.

[DeistPaladin]

Because while the entire mythology of Islamo-Christianity is crap, there is no doubt that the Jewish stories predated Islam. As if you need proof of this, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide it.

[ditdeb]

Beng as a Methodist Christian, Yes I know that there were Bibles released after Islam for example the King Jame Verison was released in 1611 and the Bishop Bible in 1568. so I am answering for John and 43.

[4312ton]

"there were Bibles released after Islam"

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. These versions were new translations. What Beng seems to say is that new books, gospels, revelations etc, were written, and added, to the Bible after the Quran was issued.

[Benghazison]

I love your words "Basically the same" and "Beng SEEMS to say " lol,1000s of the so-called BibleS were written and added before and after Islam the heavy production and release of the so-called BibleS never stopped throughout history. 43 if you believe that there is only one single version of the so-called BibleS OT and NT that mean either you're a lair or you have no clue. time to pick between lies and ignorance. sallam

[4312ton]

"time to pick between lies and ignorance"

You are able to do both at the same time!

Adios

[Benghazison]

Ciao caro amico.

[Benghazison]

A deist legitimizing a the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls that piece of myth wouldn't convince my old shoe. So lets go back to my question, Did the authors of the so-called BibleS release any versions after Islam? Yes or No?

[Lohitaksha]

Will there be a new edition of the Quran in modern Arabic?

[Benghazison]

You see this question proves your lack of knowledge about the Quran and the Arabic language. let me tell you something you have no clue about.there's only one Arabic language, Arabic is the only preserved language on earth. there's no modern nor old Arabic,it has always been the same language and it will always be. you need to do some good studies about Arabic the most powerful and richest language on earth. Sallam

[4312ton]

"the so-called BibleS authors never released any of their myths after Islam.what a logic of absurd"

What kind of history do they teach in Libya?

Mohamed called the OT "the Book" and The NT "the Evangel" Maybe you should read your Quran. Read al-An'am 155-157.

Mohamed realized that he too, "needed a book". So, like any other new religious movement , he, or somebody, wrote one. Islam is a classic "me too" religion.

Turns out it was not the "last and final" revelation either!

[4312ton]

"while the so-called BibleS include the so-called OT are too many"

Nah, it's basically the same Bible with some translation variations. The New Testament (the Jesus story) had been around for over 600 years when Mohamed started to fabricate his religion. The Quran calls the NT the "Evangel". The old Testament, (the Jewish story), is much older and Mohamed plagiarized extensively from it.

Your notion that new Bible version were issued after the Quran in nonsense.

[AbelMagwitch73]

The one I enjoy most is the FACT that Nazareth neither existed during Jesus' day nor appeared in any document before the men wrote the new testament.

[movieklump]

Jesus IS real! He is one of the voices in my head.

[dannidandannikins]

lol. one of three I guess.

(youtube comments disclaimer: this is a joke. I hate having to say this, but the frequency with which people assume you are serious in the most ridiculous situations.)

[DeistPaladin]

Don't I know it. In this medium, facial expressions and tone of voice are lost so people can easily assume you're serious. Plus, there's the "Poe's Law" effect.

[Benghazison]

why did the Holy Quran choose leprosy cure as one miracle of Jesus pbuh miracles? why the leprosy was the perfect choice so far?as there's no cure to it up to this day?how did the (author) of Quran know that there will be no cure to leprosy until this day? why didn't (he) choose another disease?as there were many incurable diseases at that time in that area,why was (he) specific about leprosy? why leprosy is still existed today?why advanced science and medic incapable to eliminate leprosy?

[DeistPaladin]

So, Beng, you're saying that your god created a horrifying sadistic disease and prevented humanity from curing it so he could mention it in a holy text and this would be regarded as proof of his existence... why again?

In any event, if your god wants to prove himself, a better way might be to make a public speech to the UN.

[Benghazison]

Bob Dylan's quote is perfect one " the answer my friend is blowing in the wind " you see, you can't answer because there's only one answer which you know it well but you would never admit. at the end of this month the Libyan dictator will be giving a speech to the UN to prove himself. the UN only for sick weirdos not for God Almighty. sorry John you just talk for the sake of talking, you failed to answer. sallam

[Benghazison]

Please atheists and deists whenever you find the natural and logical answer inform me, but i advice you to listen to Bob Dylan's song blowing in the wind! when he says "the answer my friend is blowing in the wind".Finally May God's gift of reason light your way to answer my questions. sallam

[SmilingSkeptic]

What about the possibility of the existence of an influential and charismatic Jewish teacher, maybe named Jesus, who taught a "new take of the old books"? This teacher was later made into a myth as the Son of God by his acolytes who wanted to continue his teachings? I believe there's enough evidence to satisfy that scenario. I think the manufactured myth around a real person is plausible. The matter of his existence is moot, however, if one agrees he was not the Son of God.

[Benghazison]

Jesus son of Mary pbut was a holy prophet and human. he was nor of God.

[binaryspider]

Sounds to me like you trying to maintain the belief in Jesus. Sure, I'll accept the possibility, but we're not talking about possibility; we're talking about proof. Smiling Skeptic, be a skeptic for a second. Do you want to reinforce a belief in Cool-Guy-Jesus, and expect people to stop questioning his historicity if he was not the son of God? There is no proof that Jesus ever existed; what he really was is a totally different issue.

[Nowitzki25]

great video john, i love your debunking videos, very entertaining and knowledgable.

[wolfwing1]

well one book I read went with the idea that Jesus did exist, but hat paul and the religion of James were two completly different ones, Paul is the one that took it from it's Jewish roots, James and such followed the more Jewish beliefs. ANd it was then the author of Luke/Acts that tried to combine the two gtroups.

[JohnFredricksen]

I find it more reasonable to assume the "myths" or "gospels" about Jesus point to a real person than to some sort of cabal gathering together to make up stories about a non existent being in order to invent a new religion.

I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories that attempt to explain history we don't agree with or don't want to accept.

[melowar78]

It deosn't matter to me if Jesus was a real man or not. The whole "died for our sins" notion is nonsense.

[Rationalific]

They sure love "scholarly consensus" when it agrees with them. As for evolution...hey, what do the scholars know! They're suppressing the truth!

[deathByStupid]

Good video. Here are some reason i believe he was a historical figure.

1) Hitchens points out why invent a whole story about a census in bethlahem to match the scriptures. Just to shift his birthplace from Nazareth. If he is made up why not just say Jesus of Bethlahem.

2) Occamsrazor - In a time when every tom/dick and harry claimed to be a messiah why invent one from scratch?

3) Some gospels (not in the bible) are older, they would start to be 1st/2nd hand accounts not 5th/6th. *shrug*.

[bradreed]

good vid john. i feel jesus is just like every other god that ever been worshipped on this planet.....100% imaginary

[Ostara12]

God vs the bible is a really great book

[Maximara]

Irenaeus, according to Robert McQueen Grant (Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, The University of Chicago), not only claimed that Jesus was at least 49 years old when he was crucified in Book 2 Chapter 22 paragraph 6 of "Against Heresies" but expressly made Pontius Pilate governor under Claudius Caesar (41-54) in paragraph 74 of his "Demonstration" clearly outside the accepted timeline

[JordanKimball]

I think that Jesus was a historical character because of the insane lies that the writers made in order to try and make him fit the so called prophecies. Christopher Hitchens talks about this a little bit in one of his debates.

[Benghazison]

John! Jesus pbuh is real and he was a holy prophet and the proof is clear, it's his cure of leprosy.think about it, may God's gift of reason light your way. lol

[montrealpsycho]

Treatments for leprosy can be found in the Sushruta Samhita (India), which has been written in the 6th Century BC. In 1995, the World Health Organization estimated that between 2 and 3 million people were permanently disabled because of leprosy. And that's considered a great progress, considering the fact that there were no effective treatment between the 40's of the 20th Century. So what cure are you talking about? Leprosy has been affecting mankind for the last 9000 years.

[montrealpsycho]

*no effective treatment before.........

[Benghazison]

Atheists and deists..etc believe that Jesus son of Mary pbuh was a myth. my only proof he was existed,is his cure of leprosy, Jesus pbuh was the only one who was able to cure leprosy by God's leave. as long as there is no cure to leprosy up to this second, then Jesus pbuh is reality and he shall always be, that's what i was talking about. sallam

[DeistPaladin]

Actually, very few of us go so far as to believe Jesus was a myth. Dawkins has said he believed Jesus was a historical character. Harris treated him as such in his book, "The End of Faith". Hitchens has been outspoken arguing in favor of a historical Jesus. What we do agree is there was no man born of a virgin.

[Benghazison]

Very good shift, from extreme belief that he was a myth to a historical character. i remember your T-shirt slogan stated that "Jesus never existed" bu today after about 6 moths of debating this issue, Jesus was existed but as historical character.John! I promise you some day soon,he shall be a holy prophet came with message of God with miracles by God's leave. sallam

[DeistPaladin]

I never said I made that shift. I was speaking of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris.

[Maximara]

You have to be careful about what you mean about "historical character". For all we know there may have been a teacher called Jesus who "pluged into" the existing mythology as there was the case for for John Frum in the early 1940s. It is like King Arthur--there may be a "historical character" behind the myths but the details of who he really was have effectively been lost.

[montrealpsycho]

And you base yourself on which records? I bet it's the Bible. If that's the case, then sorry, the Bible can't justify itself.

[Benghazison]

No way i would use that funny myth as record,the so-called BibelS are nothing but a comical man-made myth, very low class history books which we don't recognize it at ll, but i am based on my own book the Holy Quran. the only scientific living proof that Jesus pbuh was existed is his cure of leprosy. Sallam

[montrealpsycho]

Ah okay, I see... You're not basing yourself on a book of myths but on another book of myths. Show me that proof for the cure of leprosy by Jesus. Where is your source? In the Quran? Not enough.

[Benghazison]

great! i know you believe that the Holy Quran is a (myth) that's fine. so the one who (wrote) the Quran. why did he choose and was specific about the leprosy cure as a miracle of Jesus pbuh? why the leprosy was the perfect choice so far? as there's no cure to it up to this day? you tell me plz.

[Lohitaksha]

Dapsone is a pharmacological medication used in combination with rifampicin and clofazimine as multidrug therapy (MDT) for the treatment of Mycobacterium leprae infections (leprosy).

The discovery of an effective treatment for leprosy in 1982, combined with the realization that leprosy was not a particularly communicable disease (roughly 95% of the population is naturally immune) led to the decline of leper colonies around the world.

I looked it up.

[DeistPaladin]

Hey Beng, Jesus also healed paralysis. That hasn't been cured yet. You can use that one now.

Whatever you think that proves.

[Benghazison]

Doctor Lohitaksha.... you didn't answer my questions. you and John are telling me worthless stories. you're trying to run away from my questions by playing a leprosy specialist role to convince yourself that you've answered and John is playing with a funny myth. you both fail to answer. why was the Quran specific about the leprosy cure as a miracle of Jesus pbuh? May God's gift of reason light your ways lads.

[DeistPaladin]

Because leprosy was a problem for the people in the area? That's just a guess. I don't know the minds of the people who wrote the story.

Again, it proves what?

[Benghazison]

5 months ago you said Coincidence? today that's just a guess? your great quote"I don't know the minds of the people who wrote the story"again you admitted it,you don't know. Mr John how many diseases were problem at that time in that area? or leprosy was the only disease in that area? you failed to answer.you need to ask Dr Lohitaksha for ancient diseases history or uncle Google would help.May God's gift light your dark ways Lads.you failed again.

[Benghazison]

How many diseases were there at that era? or you do believe there was only one single disease which is leprosy? so that's why he had to pick it for his book?why the leprosy was the specific choice to his book as one of the miracles of Jesus pbuh?it was a great choice as he knew for sure that leprosy shall never be cured up to this day? why the leprosy is still existed in our world? when you answer with logic i will get back to you.May God's gift of reason light your way.

[rextrek]

u look like Rick Moranas on SCTV

[saliental]

Fascinating book!

As I understand Ehrman, studying the NT led him to abandon the delusion that the Bible is the inspired word of God. He says that his agnosticism resulted from the incompatibility of suffering and a creator god.

I think that you raise distinct questions.

What evidence would convince us that Jesus was historical? Presumably, Xian-independent documentation would remove the potential of circular fallacy. The question then becomes, should such evidence exist?

[saliental]

2. The likeliest place for such evidence would presumably be Roman reports surrounding the "crucifixion". There is none, but it could have been lost. My point is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

The next question is, "what does it matter whether or not there was a charismatic Jewish apocalyptic preacher?" Does it matter whether the myths had human inspiration?

I am certain that such a man could only be mortal and could not have been resurrected.

[saliental]

3 However, one cannot logically prove that a non-existent man did not, in fact, exist, so I think that the question of whether or not a human-model existed is moot.

What undeniably does exist is a horrendously flawed, internally inconsistent work of fiction. We owe this knowledge to the testimony of scholarly experts. Let's not toss out their expertise, because *that* is what refutes the claims of biblical-literalist apologists.

[montrealpsycho]

I agree with you. It seems that Faust did in fact exist, though his existence has little to do with the fiction that found its way through time and in Goethe's fiction. Does it mean that Faust really met Mephistopheles? Not at all. It only means that history, when left to the imaginary of mankind is often twisted.

That leads me to my main point. Scholar or not, one who wants to feed me their beliefs that the Bible is divine will first need to provide me with strong evidences of their claim.

[saliental]

"will first need to provide me with strong evidences of their claim"

That ain't gonna happen, is it? Xianity has had 2,000 years, and it has come up with nothing other than a retreat into fideism and the emphasis on new apologetics.

If it's good enough for the credulous, it ain't good enough for me.

[montrealpsycho]

"That ain't gonna happen"

I don't think so either.

Logic tells me rationality is way more reasonable.

[montrealpsycho]

(cont.) If they can't provide me with these evidences, then arguing with them is not anymore interesting to me than arguing about Harry Potter. I have no interest in it as I rather having a discussion over other kinds of fictions.

[KitsuneVoss]

From Bart's lecture (Historical Jesus), what he presented from the bible is materials which did not make sense in terms of stuff which did not make sense for the writers of the gospels to include.

[themanofearth]

Again. AWESOME!

[Fast81Z28]

Driving by a church yesterday..the sign said "What the bible says about hell", I thought to myself "What a fictitious book has to say about a fictitious place". I wonder if we will ever be free of this as a society.

[dointime85]

The question is: why should they have invented Jesus and preach about him? I see why they might have had reasons to exagerrate his miracles and change his words but why should anyone preach an invented person.

[DeistPaladin]

Just to be clear, there is not a single skeptic who claims that anyone "just made up Jesus one day". Belief in him evolved over time with a people who thought they were God's chosen, who wondered why they were being ruled by foreign empires and finally a faction decided their kingdom was in a higher place.

[Ibis333]

But given your scenario (that no such person ever existed), a group of people in the Jerusalem church would've had to have made him up one day. Kind of like Hubbard & Scientology. But unlike that scenario, we don't have a single "prophet" saying that he met this guy Jesus who did/said xyz. We have several sources which agree on some points and disagree on others. So, you take away what is obviously mythologizing, late, anachronistic, interpolated and see what's left that's plausible.

[DeistPaladin]

Or maybe they invented a king in Heaven, seen by Paul who had a vision, later brought down to earth in parable and later these parables were thought of as literal history. This might explain the "false Christians" John rails against who didn't believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus.

Is this any less plausible than an obscure wandering rabbi who wrote nothing about his own teachings who wasn't noticed in his own time was picked from far more notable doom criers and messiah wannabes?

[Ibis333]

This scenario doesn't mesh with evidence, which seems to suggest a progression in the mythos from 'completely human prophet' to 'divine being'.

Not implausible for obscure rabbis, preachers, magicians, philosophers of the time not to write anything down (no reason to believe that Jesus would've been literate after all) cf. John the Baptist -- much more corroboration for his ministry and he didn't write anything either; ...

[Ibis333]

evidence is that he was noticed in his own time -- locally and by people that he knew (& noticed enough to be executed for a trouble-maker), but not on the scale one would expect for a real messiah ;-) -- the scenario seems very obvious to me. Obscure guy gets fame after his death. Happens *all the time*. And with more and more people making up stories about him, he gains more and more notoriety.

[Ibis333]

In the end, it makes very little difference for anyone looking at the issue from an unprejudiced view point. The real historical Jesus bears very little resemblance to the gospel Jesus or to the divine Jesus of Nicaea or to the Jesus of the middle ages or the Jesus of modern fundamentalists. For all intents and purposes (of the sceptic) he might as well have not existed. Only specialized scholars looking at the primitive sources of Christian doctrine need concern themselves about the original.

[DeistPaladin]

I think it is important to define what we mean by "historical Jesus". I interpret this to mean, "the Gospels are based on a true story."

By this, I don't mean that the miracles have to be real but I would expect to find a religious leader who did some of the more plausible things (like a sermon on a mount, or his entry into Jerusalem).

We can dismiss the miracles. The successful ministry seems unlikely given the dearth of evidence. We have no detailed reliable accounts of what he said.

[Ibis333]

1. That's not what I mean by historical Jesus. For example, the entry into Jerusalem is obviously mythologizing, the mount a convenient location to place the string of sayings from the originally oral sources. As well, his success as a 'draw' for the crowds has been highly exaggerated (or there would be corroborating external sources). There are things in the gospel accounts that are likely to pertain to the real guy: probably a carpenter or similar, born in Nazareth, executed by Pontius Pilate

[Ibis333]

2. likely his parents were name Joseph and Mary, had at least one brother named James, not likely educated, preached in and around Galilee.

That kind of thing.

[Ibis333]

* needed to add, the Bethlehem narrative is certainly fabrication from top to bottom; the epithet Jesus of Nazareth is the clue to his real life origin.

[DeistPaladin]

Even if this is so, good luck ever knowing anything at all about this hypothetical man. We'll never know the true story for all the myths it's buried under.

Even if he existed, he might as well not have.

[Ibis333]

1. That's why I said what I did. The study of history can be a lot like the study of paleontology. We can see that there must be a transitional fossil between point x and point z in the phylogenetic tree; from the evidence we do have, we can roughly determine its features. Does it matter to anyone but specialists that we're still in search of concrete evidence of this "hypothetical" organism? It doesn't change significantly the overall picture.

[Ibis333]

2. But it is still unwarranted to claim that because we have found no fossil, the organism never existed. Or to say that (secular) scholars who have spent their lives studying the evidence must be blinded or have their vision coloured by prejudice. Investigating this stuff is a monster of an effort (learning the languages, paleography, context, sifting through centuries of biased source material even unto contemporary 'scholarship'). You shouldn't dismiss their conclusions so lightly.

[xNickTheBrickx]

Also, if you use this same level of evidence to prove the existence of a person, assuming they didn't exist if they do not meet the criteria, then all sorts of pre-socratic philosophers disappear, along with pythagorus, laozi, buddha, and countless other characters historians have no reason to believe did not exist. Also, that the gospel writers did not write with enough depth and with plenty of mythmaking does not mean they invented the whole thing. many people were mythologized in antiquity

[xNickTheBrickx]

2:11- It was called the Jesus Seminar and they are pretty much all secular scholars and they agreed that Jesus existed and furthermore they wrote an entitre book called the Five Gospels in which they show how each gospel campares to the other ones (including Q) and where the source material came from.... Also I do not understand why it is easier to assume that the christ cults appeared out of thin air as opposed to having been inspired by a man. That doesn't make any sense.

[Ibis333]

Note I said 'reconstructed'. I'm simplifying for the sake of space, but look at it this way: we know that the synoptic gospels shared sources. Which means those sources were in common circulation before the synoptics were written. We are fairly sure that Paul's genuine epistles date to a time when the members of the Jerusalem group were only once or twice removed from knowing or at least seeing Jesus.

[Ibis333]

As a scholar (though admittedly my specialization is in Christianity once it had gotten off the ground rather than in the historical Jesus), I'd have to say that the general consensus is that there was a real person upon whom the Christ mythos is based. The reconstructed Q gospel & other sayings, the Pauline letters are early enough that complete fabrication is very unlikely. Also, no accusations of Jesus's non-existence in early anti-Christian polemics is telling.

[DeistPaladin]

Do we have a Q gospel? I thought this was a hypothetical document.

Do we have any anti-Christian documents that date to the 1st century or early 2nd. Do we have many at all? Most of their writings were destroyed by Christians and only survive as they're quoted for refutation.

[AtheismandSkepticism]

quick question...

was peter's gospel synoptic, and does all of it still exist?

[Ibis333]

All we have are fragments, not enough to clearly determine how much the author relied upon the synoptics (or alternatively Q) and how much was independent. There does seem to be some relationship with the synoptics though (plus some highly! divergent content).

[Ibis333]

I'm talking primarily about the quotes for refutation. It's far fetched to think that the most obvious accusation: that the whole religion is based on a person who never existed, was never employed. (& it would have been easy for an apologist to make their case, citing Paul etc., that he did exist, so it doesn't make sense that they would have left it out of their apologies--thus leaving the door open for even more attacks on that line).

[Ibis333]

It's much more probable that no one levelled such an attack, because at the time, with the evidence they had (e.g. bureaucratic records, eyewitnesses, living relatives), it would have been unsuccessful.

I'm reminded of the volkswagen in AronRa's video. Sometimes one explanation for the evidence is much more plausible than another. In this case, a real historical preacher with a modest following was executed and became a magnet for a slew of movements following his death

[Ibis333]

accreting to his person stories and sayings and mythologies.

The evidence that we do have does not support the notion of the original Jerusalem group springing up around no one, making up a fictitious dead leader who is supposed to be related to several members of the group, then convincing non-Jews to follow said dead fictitious leader, when, at the time, the supposed events would have been so recent and so easily falsified.

[Maximara]

The evidence we have fit very well with evidence of a modern equivalent called John Frum. There is no evidence John Frum the religion portrays ever existed. So why should we think the Jesus of the Gospels ever existed?

[iluvhsw]

Bart Ehrman gives his reasons why he believes that Jesus was an historical figure in chapter 4 of his new book "Jesus, Interrupted". One reason he cites is the "criterion of dissimilarity." It is a good book. I recommend reading it.

[emeralds222]

It was shocking to me about 10 years ago when I first heard of this. After much studying I realized it had to be true that the U.S. citizens have been feed fodder for generations.

Most people thought I was nuts when I first brought it up in conversations. Today, with the help of many, it is slowly becoming common knowlege HOORAY!!

[bignastydragon]

from my very limited understanding there was likely a real person who the character jesus was based on. but 100+ years of verbal transmission and merging with other myths and legends turned that character into the one we see today.

to have a positive impact on christianity, the jesus character would have to have been real in his entirety. so i dismiss christianity out of hand.

[emeralds222]

I wouldn't necessarily say likely, but there possesses a probability. Just like there is probability there was a character for whom Robin Hood was created.

I know it is semantics, but we couldn't really know if it is likely or not.

[bignastydragon]

yes, apologies for my wording.

from my limited understanding it is possible...

the robin hood tale also shows the survivability of a tale despite its anti-establishment message. some passages from the new testament are certainly anti-establishment, this was in my view more likely the stuff which was from the early days. pro-establishment passages are more likely edits.

[emeralds222]

To bignastydragon:

I hadn't thought of pro-establishment passages as being edits--very profound.

What I did notice upon my de-conversion, was that so many of the profound teachings actually mirrored the church, not the secular world; ie: false preachers, false teachers, wolves in sheeps clothing turned out to be the ministers and not the secular peoples. "He that hath eyes & ears" actually witness that noah isn't true and evolution is. etc...,

[bignastydragon]

i could be wrong about the pro-establishment passages, it's just an idea which could be proven true or false given actual evidence, but it follows common sense.

now that i've seen it so much in the religious, those projections that the church put on the secular world, which are actually of themselves are quite humerous.

[formless777]

Jesus and his crucifixion myth is also uncomfortably similar to the myth of the the Semitic God Baal.

[formless777]

Yeah DeistPaladin is right. There is no scholarly consensus on the veracity of Jesus' existence. There was a Jesus who was stoned to death for black magic in 100BC who is a likely contender, and another who died at Masada, but Josephus would have met him, so he's out.

[ricardas83]

I recall moment when I was reading book of history in school, and there was presented event when Moses climbed on the mountain to talk with God. LOL

Now, how that could be written as a fact in the book of history about ancient world???!!!

[PinkProgram]

If there was a historic carpenter then his name was not Jesus. If such a person existed then his name was Yeshua ^_^

The romans did the same thing to the greeks :D

[formless777]

Actually there was no such character. The association of Jesus with Carpentry comes from the Gaulish deity of carpentry Esus.

[PinkProgram]

What I said was if such a character existed his name would be Yeshua.

[formless777]

Actually, that's not a conclusion which can be reached without supporting documentary evidence from the period. Though such a character may have existed, without confirmation he need not be called Yeshua at all, consider if you will, the wonder worker Appolonius of Tyana for example, who toured the region and is a highly reasonable Jesus substitute.

[defcore108]

Even though you're just re-uploading right now I like having your vids show up in my subscription window! :-)

[cireyar]

yeah thats alot of shirt changing

[Beefstew2011]

I was just coming to this and then you hit the nail on the head for me.

[Surhotchaperchlorome]

Damn, dude!

You've been on a video re-uploading spree!

How many more do you have to go?