Also it's funny how people are willing to jump the gun and say ignorant things like presenting someone else's point of view is actual fact yet never take the time to even think of questioning the religious figureheads or peers or even the writings. Take a look at the factual errors presented in the text before you condemn someone else for doing so. I believe faith is a good thing but putting your faith in what a bunch of dead guys said 2000 years ago? Swing that mental pick the other direction
1 to 3 years is a time gap that doesn't fall into a eye witness spectrum of time. Eye witness implies that you actually SAW something, not hear about it a year later. That given it WAS the best we could EXPECT at the time they were written, unfortunately times have changed and so have our expectations, I meant unfortunate for you.
@laharl808 OK...How do we know Ceaser crossed the Rubicon? How do we know Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, existed? How do we know Herodotos wrote the Illiad? How do we know know anything prior to the Middle Ages? The New testament is the most verified ancient document ever. We have less than 10 manuscripts of Emperor Tiberius who was the the Roman ruler during Christ time, there ar over 40 mentioning Jesus by name,including secular pagan Tacitus and Jewish historian Josepheus.
It never ceases to amaze me how poor the standard of evidence used by Christians really is, although I guess that's the only way one can actually be a Christian...
In spite of everything mentioned in this video, what do you say to Muslims who say the same thing about proof of the "real God", Allah? They sound exactly like you and are CERTAIN that Allah is the one, true god and not Yaweh.
So who are we to believe?
And don't get me started on the other 468 "major gods" man has invented:
also, if someone lives a perfect life of righteousness, always donating to the poor, always doing the morally right thing, helping others, and basically everything the Bible told them to do, but they DID NOT believe to accept Christ as their Savior, do they go to hell? should they suffer for simply not believing in Christ and being wrong even though they carried out his message? if they do go to hell then why bother even trying.
your evidence of Jesus is the New Testament? The Bible cannot be used as historical fact. Also the eyewitnesses of few 2,000 years ago written on paper and tablets? that is no "Evidence".
After an unbeliever does a little "research" he or she will be able to find what may appear to be good arguments against Christianity..but true understanding of the Old and New Testament will prove that many of these claims made by skeptics show a lack of biblical knowledge as a whole
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
How do you explain the fact that Egyptian worshiped Horus way before the birth of Christ? They couldn't possibly borrow anything from Christianity, because there was no Christianity.
As for virgin birth...does it really matter? Are you saying that it happened? I mean virgin birth...really?
Ha ha....."Jesus preached against the love of money".......how does this not apply to the rich? I think the rich love money. Bill would watch your rambling analysis and probably laugh. All I see here is tunnel vision.....
Romans 1:18-19 says nothing about original sin at all. It's not even hinted. He actually says how man's wickidness corrupts affirming again that we sin. Our sins are our own--not Adam's.
Romans 3:9 again says nothing of the sort.
Verse 17 does not suggest that sin is passed through blood or any such inclinations.
1 Corinthians 15:22 simply says that death was brought foth through Adam because he introduced sin into the world and therefore Jesus came to atone for it. Romans 3:23 clearly says that "we all have sinned." We're judged by our actions, not the ones of a mythical figure thousands of years ago; Which makes sense becaue original sin isn't even recognized in Judaism. Adam's fall in Gensis is his alone.
Original sin is not taught in the NT. When Paul says that as Adam has sinned and death entered the world through him he is not saying that we are tainted with his sin and that babies are born sinful. Quite the contrary, the NT keep affirming how important children are and how one must strive to be like them. Romans 5:12 says just that.
why should we go to hell if we do wrong if we didnt ask to be here?i dont see the point in punishing something you created because that person made a mistake. why not just make them disapear . a god that tortures dosent seem like a god i want to be a part of!!!!!!!!!!!
Critical thinking is important, because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, explain, and restructure our thinking, decreasing thereby the risk of adopting, acting on, or thinking with, a false belief. However, even with knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, mistakes can happen due to a thinker's inability to apply the methods or because of character traits such as egocentrism.
See I think your problem as well as others is your relying on the Internet for your information that not true scholarship because certain people have agendas so they copy and paste information because they people like you are too lazy think for yourself so I suggest you go to the library and do some real research before you so arrogantly proclaim some ones work as debunked.
So then the question becomes Who are the sources of our sources and what make us believe their correct?.......
just because my sources came from the internet that doesnt mean my sources are false, and just because you spend your research more in library doesnt mean your research are correct. use your critical thinking like what you were suggesting.
show me the documents that the parallels where earlier than Jesus.
Dr. Erik Hornung The Valley of the Kings. The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, Dr. James Curl The Egyptian Revival. Botterweck, G. Johannes, ed., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Catholic Encyclopedia, XIV, Chronicon Paschale, ed. J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 92. Commentary on Tacitus and Cassius Dio From Jesus to Christ, Frontline, PBS David Warburton The Valley of the Kings, tr. Thomas Paine Life and Writings of Thomas Paine.
i checked your sources and i cant find any primary sources of Christianity borrowed their story from those other deities stuff in there. plus the Historians and scholars that i provided already debunked the parallels between them, and the so called parallels where dated around 150AD. so whose copying who if you`ll say someones copying?
one of your source is the Catholic Encyclopedia? are you kidding me? do you even know when did the council of Nicaea started?
i didnt take you word for it so i did have my own research.
the Horus myth was indeed came before Christ but Horus` story and other myths was re-written several times depending on whoever is the ruler, and the so called Jesus story parallels didnt occur until 2nd century AD. the God - myth parallel ideas came from the satanist HP Blavatsky to discredit Christianity.
"Myth parallel ideas came from the satanist HP Blavatsky to discredit Christianity" is not the point the point is that the Jesus story was taken from the Egyptian story of Horus "the original story" thus making it a plagiarized lie it doesn't matter when the parallel occurred ......The Question is Why did it Occur? and Why was it changed or I am I missing something..
"Myth parallel ideas came from the satanist HP Blavatsky to discredit Christianity" - is actually the whole point. even the historians of Horus, Krishna, ,Buddha, Atis etc... said that the so called parallels are wrong. Those people whose promoting the so called parallels dont even provide any reliable source other than quoting Blavatsky`s book. That is the whole point of this, and if you will study their plans further you will understand why discrediting Christianity is very important to them.
Doug, I've watched a few of your videos and they have given me a lot to think about. It is awesome to see Christians who actually study apologetics and know why they believe what they believe. Out of curiosity, are you a member of any specific denomination?
Hehehe, it so funny seeing all this pathetic attempts to justify religion and faith with "logical" arguments. You just can't win this one, understand? :D There is NOTHING logical about it! NO-THING!
But then again, what did I expect from the people, who by the same "reasoning" came to conclusion, that the universe is 6000 years old. Religulous, that's exactly what you are! :D
Musickle here (I can't comment on my on vid for some reaosn) I never made the claim the earth was 6000 years old, nor do I believe that. Also, a refutation is not an argument. The illogic is entirely yours.
Funny, you seem to think you know what logical argumentation is, and yet you argue from ridicule. Maybe you should bone up on your logic 101 before you opine on who is being illogical and who isn't.
the Pope is just the Bishop of Rome.. so actually yes, the idea of Bishops are entirely Biblical, and the idea that there exists a succession from Peter, the rock (Matt. 16:18), is very much Biblical--- The Pope's office is Biblical. Also I'm not sure when you said 'most Christians' don't acknowledge this, .. almost 2 out of 3 Christians are Catholic Christians.. so technically most Christians do hold to this idea.
in the verse in latin petrO is peter and petrA is the rock. petrO is a stone/rock, can be moved and taken out of place. which is what happened when peter denied christ 3 times, jesus rebuked him in mat 16:23, and when he cut the soldiers ear. but petrA is a firm rock and jesus is the petrA, also check out 1 corinth 10:4 in latin. also with the keys, check matthew 18:18 where all the disciples are given the power to bind and lossen. as binding is preaching the gospel and loosing is decieving.
Mr. Musickle, google Zeitgeist and watch the first part on religion and maybe you'll realize the truth about where religions come from. There is no doubt that the Egyptians version existed first. Also read The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S. The son of God is the sun of God. That is the chapter featured in the film Zeitgeist. In ancient times, people all over the world worshiped the sun and it was known as the Savior of the World, The Light of the World, for obvious reasons. Nice guitars dude
And the books documenting the history of Harry Potter, are they proof that Harry Potter is/was real and wandering around somewhere in England? I'm not trying to be a smartass.. but saying a book is proof of existence/reality is incredibly flawed logic. Look how many texts have been written about Spider-Man. Many more than 66 'books'. And those books mention real places, too. Say.. New York. Spider-Man books also reference many real places and events.
I pointed to books claiming to record real history written by both Christian and non-Christian sources. As for the latter, Tactitus is considered by many to the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Seutonius actually used official records to write his history. Please name all the credible historians who claim Harry Potter or Spider-man is real.The flawed logic is yours.
Again, all you have is an argument from authority. Do these historians believe in Jesus because they were raised in a Christian culture or do they have evidence to back it up?
As for Spiderman, he's got far more texts attributing to him and far more witnesses of his power & existence than Jesus: Harry Osbourne, Mary Jane Watson, Felicia Hardy, Aunt May, Dr. Octavius (and he's even got a doctor credential). So either Spiderman is a superhero, a liar, or a lunatic, right?
I did my specialist degree in ancient literature and know the difference between mythological character (teutonic gods and godesses for example) and a historical figure, rooted in real time events, like Jesus of Nazareth. You're not comparing apples with apples, just flying sphagetti monsters with Zeus!
& again you're applying ad populum argument. 1 man can disagree w/ the whole world & still be right. I don't care WHO believes Jesus was an historical figure, only whether they have good reason to. So by all means provide me with the BEST evidence you have to support your assertion that Jesus was an historical figure.
Evidence might include "Christian" texts including the NT, non-Christian texts like Tacitus, NT claims that Jesus makes for himself examined within the context of Jewish history, subsequent historical impact that is not replicated in scale or quality by mythological figures, personal experience of faith, friends and acquaintances testimony. Miracles I have witnessed; an unbeliever who got converted to the fact of Christ's reality, and so on.
As I've already point out, none of these texts are contemporaneous (within 10 years of an alleged event). This is what professional historians look for. There's historical impact w/ regards to the religion, no less impacting than that of Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism. If Jesus was executed in 33 CE, nothing seemed to change & nobody seemed to care about it for at least 40 years, when suddenly stories that the illiterate shepherds suddenly found people to write down their stories.
I know some1 who was converted from Christianity to Islam, so I guess by your standards of evidence, that must mean Islam is the true religion.
Obviously your Obama analogy is a false analogy. Obama actual exists in the present physical world & can easily have his existence verified. The evidence is all around us. The same cannot be said of Jesus, Buddha, & Poseidon--none of whom have anywhere near that level of evidence, making this an absurd straw man.
People reach different conclusions about the significance of Jesus. Muslims don't try and dispute his existence. The evidence of Obama's existence is in books, on the TV. Handed on- just like the NT eye witness accounts were. To deny that evidence you need to propose an elaborate conspiracy theory about why people back then wrote about Jesus.
No conpiracy theory required. Read Karen Armstrong, Bart Ehrman, Joseph Campbell, Anthropology, Media Studies & study how information travels in oral cultures, Marshall McCluhan, Lewis Mumford, how urban myths & tall tales are spread, or just play the children's game "Telephone."
If you think that Jesus and Poseidon are on the same level in terms of historical credibility as real people then I guess we'll have to leave it there; the deconstructionist approach tends to meander down the road of absurdity.
I'm still waiting for 1 good piece of evidence that Jesus is a real person & an answer to the half dozen questions I've asked you. You've already stated that your beliefs stem from faith & anecdotal evidence, the 2 least reliable forms of evidence. So stop pretending that you give a damn what historians think. You only only accept the views of those who agree w/ you. AND YOU KNOW IT.
That's a lot of assumptions to make in the short time I've chatted with you :) Actually it is you who are on the back foot. Let me restate my case. You are arguing an improbable position from the start in saying Jesus never existed. I have personal experience of faith, the NT record, the views of most serious historians, archaeological evidence (the tomb of Peter, the Roman record relating to Pilate) and yes, anecdotal evidence on my side.
let me clarify: By personal experience of faith I mean having been convinced of the reality of God through experience of the power of Jesus Christ and being taken from a position of not believing to having a belief that Jesus is who he said he was.
You continue to dodge my questions. And cannot tell me how you know Jesus is responsible for your personal experiences and not leprechauns or genies, Poseidon, Amon Ra, Thor, Allah, or any other magical figure w/ equivalent scriptural basis. Real historians recognize the importance of contemporaneous accounts. That nobody bothered to write down Jesus' amazing story until 40 years after his alleged ministry, that's pretty extraordinary.
Please allow that there is less textual evidence for leprechauns or genies than there is for the disciples, apostles, Christ, Pilate and so on. We have to start somewhere. The reason I am a Christian is that my personal experience of God corresponds to what Jesus says about himself as recorded in the NT. I agree your point about contemporaneous accounts; fair. But I think that Paul's writing & Peter's letters count as such.
It's very hard for a Christian to explain a personal experience.
"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3:5-8)
Jesus said "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" (John 3:12)
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
Christian experience will be revealed you through the Holy Spirit.
Okay, that's not "a lot of assumptions to make in a short time." That's one assumption: Paul made up the story. Period. Then everything else make perfect sense w/o the need to invoke what is by definition the most implausible assumption possible, magic. But you seem determined to continue using an ad populum argument despite it being a logical fallacy. AGAIN, I DON'T CARE WHO BELIEVES OR HOW MANY BELIEVE--ONLY WHETHER THEY HAVE GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE!
If Paul made up the story he had the backing of Peter and other NT apostles. He also gained wide acceptance of his resurrection story from a wide ensemble of people who should have been sceptical, by which I mean the Jewish audience and the disciples/apostles who had witnessed the crucifixion.
I think you are vexed because of the weakness of the position you hold. It really does put you in a small minority of people who want to believe in the improbable (the non existence of the person Jesus) based upon your strident denial of the possibility of supernatural reality impinging upon your version of reality. It causes you to continually try and pigeon hole Jesus Christ into the fiction list rather than grapple with who he really was and is.
Peter & Pilate being historical figures doesn't validate the whole story any more than the existence of Stan Lee validates that Spiderman is real. You have no understanding or interest in real historical methodology & you reject any historical analysis that doesn't support what you've already presupposed. I don't have any respect for apologetics & confirmation bias, so I see no way to have a meaningful conversation about historical record.
You are right to say that one man can disagree and still be right. But if one man tells me he doesn't believe in Barack Obama I'd say he's probably wrong. And then if he says "well, you've never seen him" I still reckon Barack Obama is real and he's wrong.
Faith literally means belief w/o evidence, so that's no help, especially since Muslims will say the same thing about their faith, which I take it is unconvincing even to you. Do you really have 2000 year-old friends or are these just people who believe due to faith? Are you sure the miracles you witnessed were from Jesus & not from Zeus, leprachans, or Harry Potter? Can you prove these miracles actually were miracles? cont'd
That's a poor definition of faith. Oxf.Dict. - "complete trust in someone or thing" In my case the person and work of Christ. I am open to people who share their spiritual experience with me; I'd agree in God's existence with Muslims. Not sure why you have to compare Jesus to fictional creations like Harry Potter in that Dawkinsish way; the apostles didn't make billions from their accounts of the resurrection. It got them killed.
Yes & I find your assertions that your dogmatic, authoritative, "complete trust in someone or thing" is objective "evidence" for Jesus extraordinarily dubious & arrogant. I compare Jesus to Harry Potter because both are fictional characters w/ magic powers. It's kinda a no-brainer comparison. & Lois Lanes didn't make billions from her accounts of Superman either, because she too was FICTIONAL! But after the fact, Big Religion has evolved into one of the most profitable industries in the world.
I just advised you on a better definition of faith. It is not unreasoning by definition, it does not mean "belief without evidence" as you wrongly asserted. Faith is not anti-intellectual per se. Made up? Paul the Apostle wasn't made up, nor was Tacitus, or Josephus, or John Chrysostum. Paul didn't make up the resurrection for cash - and I also make zilch money from my faith!
You've got nothing but Paul's word for Jesus and his magic powers. Josephus specific references to Jesus were later redactions. And Josephus and all the others you mention weren't even alive during Jesus' alleged ministry & are going on nothing but stories they've heard. Further, nobody knows anything about who the gospel writers were. You've got nothing. No holy grail, no spear of destiny, no ark of the covenant, not even an empty tomb.
Paul's words were backed up by Peter and he's authenticated by acceptance in the canon of scripture and early church tradition. You yourself acknowledge below that the Josephus "redaction" does not invalidate his witness. Your argument boils down to this: let me touch his wounds or he didn't exist.
If a historian writes after their subject lived that does not invalidate their testimony. You accept that... Come on.. I don't know about holy grail, but I know you are clutching at straws here! We're all going on stories of the past, to coin your expression.
Do you accept Paul & Peter were real? If so do you accept that Peter backed up Paul's words in his letter? Who will you accept actually existed? Let's start there. Which of the named characters in the NT were real?
A small but significant point which I feel you may be able to accept. The NT was written by different authors, yes? - whoever you think they were? Those various writers (not just Paul) credit Jesus with (your words) magic powers. 1 Peter 1; 3-4, 1 John 2; 1-2 and various others
Um, no. What is MOST LIKELY is that the passages written about the destruction of the temple were written in 70 CE after it had actually happened and were then claimed after the fact this is something Jesus had foretold 40 years earlier. Evidence? Who are you kidding? Where's the archaeological evidence, numerous corroborating accounts, enemy attestation, signs of similar supernatural occurrences in the present world? You don't even have an empty tomb! Grow up. Jesus is imaginary. Get over it.
The problem is that the New Testament books that Luke wrote in the early/mid 60's, BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem. For more information see the videos Where Did the New Testament Come From?, Is the New Testament Reliable, and Did Jesus Rise From the Dead. The existence of a historical Jesus is accepted by even the most liberal scholars and non-Christian scholars. Only the ignorant (some willfully ignorant) hold this view.
Mark came first around 70 CE. The other Gospels borrowed from Mark's account & thus came later. This is well established among historical scholars on all sides of the debate. But these types of arguments are a waste of time as they're mere arguments from authority & ad populum. It's not who believes Jesus was an historical figure that matters but whether they have good reason. & w/o any good evidence, the Jesus hypothesis is sunk. & if it weren't & Jesus was just some guy, Christianity is sunk.
Your dates are completely and utterly wrong. Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny all wrote OVER 40 YEARS AFTER Jesus' alleged ministry, meaning that none of them were even alive then. And Josephus was talking about a person with the title Cristos, not Jesus. Please stop citing things you've never read and know absolutely nothing about. And please stop plagiarizing other people's ideas, especially when those ideas are false claims.
Musickle here (I can't let me reply to my own vid). I clearly state in the video that those sources are 1st cent/early 2nd cent. sources. Josephus indeed referred to Jesus by name. Though parts of Josephus' quote has almost certainly been changed by Christian scribes over the years, no scholar I've found argues that naming Jesus was part of the changes. Aramaic copies of this passage include Jesus' name but not the disputed passages. Please stop critiquing things you know nothing about.
Your citing their writings as evidence of Jesus' existence. If I write a story about the HAL 9000 40 years later, that is not evidence for its existence. Cite we where Josephus refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth. And please explain why a text that you freely admit has been redacted after the fact is a reliable source to justify basing an entire world view on.
3:23 The prophecy of the virgin birth: Isaiah's original says "a young woman", the translation into the greek septuagint used as reference by the NT authors is simply erroneous.
The fact that none of the gospel writers could possibly have been present, and that this means that no matter how you twist it, even at best the virgin birth is hearsay, is also worth noting.
Also note that the Sanhedrin 43a section dealing with Jesus is disputed in terms of historical value. It also contradicts NT.
You're kidding, right? So the prophecy fortells that a young maiden will be with child... I can imagine everyone saying, "really? A woman will conceive and bare a child? No kidding, we thought that men were the one show have children. Wow, weren't we dumb".
It's not all that extraordinary for a young maiden to have a child. It would be extraordinary if a virgin had a child.
It's always blasphemous to ask anything that doesn't paint the bible in a positive light (shocking considering the old testament)
If I asked "what if Mary was sleeping around, or was raped, btu in those days, adultery resulted in a stoning. If that were the case, I'm sure Mary would go as far as claiming a holy something or other." If I ask that, I'd probably be treated differently at a church, but certainly not treated as someone who asks a good question.
Very true. And my guess would be, Mary (if she existed) gave regular birth that was declared "virgin birth" probably a century or more after her death. I don't think the Jews of old really believed in "virgin births" (hmmm, we still don't).
Who said that a prophecy has to foretell something extraordinary in terms of the child's birth? Does a prophecy require to have something extraordinary in it to be a prophecy? No. It just needs to foretell some event taking place in the future. and that can be accomplished as well even without a virgin birth.
The problem is that you are using what you are considering Jesus' miraculous birth to justify "the prophecy of virgin birth", which you in turn using to justify Jesus' virginal birth.
True, Hebrew has a specific word for virgin and Isaiah didnt use it. Instead he used a word meaning young woman. Virginity is often a part of what this word means, but not necessarily. But in the Greek translation of the Old Testament the word used in Isaiah specifically means virgin. The Greek translation was made by Jewish scholars about 250 years before Jesus' birth. They knew what tradition said Isaiah meant by the term and translated it virgin. So virgin is an accurate translation.
That's funny, because G-d didn't tell all those Jewish scholars what he meant. He only told Isaiah (if anyone at all), and Isaiah does not explain whether she was or was not to have a broken hymen. I would like to know why it was that G-d would allow such a small little matter as a word meaning lead His people Israel astray (which if you are a Christian you must think happened) and did not prevent it, by using the word that clearly meant virgin.
The meaning of the word did not lead Jews astray. It was their rejection of Jesus that did that. Their rejection of Jesus was reflected in such things as changing their understanding of Isaiah's meaning. Isaiah's meaning was preserved in commentaries and oral tradition. Only after Jesus was said to have fulfilled this prophecy was it's interpretation changed to exclude "virgin."
Sources: 1) An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Henry Barclay Swete.
2)Introduction to the Old Testament, RK Harrison.
It was in the early second century that the innovation of rejecting "virgin" as the meaning of Is 7:14 occurred, around the time of Aquila's Greek Trans. of the OT.
In addition, if the word meant "young woman" and not "virgin" then the whole verse makes no sense. The verse states a sign will be given. The sign is that the virgin shall conceive and bear a son. A young woman conceiving and bearing a son is an everyday event that is no sign at all and renders the verse meaningless.
As for why God chooses to do what he does, I don't presume to know unless he has expressly revealed it in scripture.
With respect, at least in English courts, the testimony of eye witnesses is used extensively. That's why we make a distinction concerning the reliability of the witness. Are they reliable or unreliable? And what was their perspective on events as they happened? These questions determine the value of the evidence they offer.
The claim in the video is not the Christianity predates Hours, it is that the parallels between Horus and Jesus cannot be dated any earlier than the 2nd century AD making Horus the copycat, not Jesus.
And just because Jews don't accept original sin (according to your source) does not mean it is not taught in the Bible.
Hi, not wanting to get into a heated debate; but I'm not clear what this guy has done to deserve your reproof. Historians are used to accepting "facts" such as the existence of people (Christ, Caesar, Genghis Khan) on the strength of written testimonial. That is a point being made here quite well. No serious historian disputes Jesus Christ existed, in the same way as they don't dispute Alexander the Great was a real person.
I remember the boycott of "The Last Temptation of Christ". Silly. The crucifixion was the most realistic until "the passion". I wasn't a Christian then. But nor do I think now that trying to gag your opponents is a good strategy. I modestly suggest to you that my faith in who Jesus is iS compatible with furthering the good of humanity. I work to help broken people fulfill their potential in life; intellectually, socially, emotionally- and spiritually.
Ok, I will instead say that I think my faith is compatible with asking questions and being honest.
As for your own brokenness, I can't say. I think that most people carry some pain around with them. I wouldn't want to be condescending to you in any discussion. I can only share my testimony of finding faith in God, where I was once sceptical.
That is disingenuous. Ehrman, Carrier, Price promote a humanist/skeptic agenda. That's like trying to say that Adolf Hitler is ok because the scholar & historian David Irving says so. Would you want to take your stand with Nazi apologists & revisionists?
That argument works both ways. This is like David Irving claiming that other historians are promoting the Holocaust-believer agenda. The only distinction you can make is by ad populum, not by evidence since there is none. You're going to have to back up your statement with evidence because the evidence they present speaks for itself. Ehrman, for instance, was a Christian going into it & continued calling himself a Christian long after Misquoting Jesus was released.
If the "evidence" provided by these "speaks for itself" why do hardly any historians & textual critics accept it? No; they roundly reject the "Jesus as Myth" hypothesis- as any sensible person would reject the minority claim that Hitler did not approve the holocaust. If we just deny Jesus existed, we need to be intellectually honest & accept that there is less textual evidence for the existence of other historical figures such as Caesar.
Even apologetics like Josh McDowell & Mike Lacona don't disagree over the evidence. I don't know any historians who disagree w/ the facts presented by Ehrman, Price, Carrier, or Armstrong. They might not have reached the same conclusions as the authors but that is not required. You can disagree w/ their conclusions but disagreeing over their evidence or methods is something entirely different.
Should the the christian bible count as such? If it is so, just don't tell me I'm supposed to take all the magic paths as historical facts.
Yes, we will all agree that history points out to the existence of Jesus and many other people, I give you that, even Maher would. But let's leave the turning water into wine and walking on the water to David Coperfield and other professionals.
If christians accepted that many paths told by the bible are cleary metaphors Maher wouldnt have so many arguments.
By the early beginning of this video you can tell you're dealing with a religious nut that's trying (very hard! lol!) to pass as an intellectual, but, like every other one of them, he has to invariably resort to a constant monotone torrent of religious jibberish and bible quotation; Like any reasonable man would concede as an argument that his interpretation of scriptures and history overrides all others...
Wise are the ones who doubts. Subscribing to religion is giving power to an institution..
I like this toolbox reading off his moniter.
And what does he use as his "proof" ? The bible...
Yea buddy. Use that same book to prove to me that Snakes talk to people and that people can live inside of a whale. Moron.
SupremeAIIah 7 months ago
Also it's funny how people are willing to jump the gun and say ignorant things like presenting someone else's point of view is actual fact yet never take the time to even think of questioning the religious figureheads or peers or even the writings. Take a look at the factual errors presented in the text before you condemn someone else for doing so. I believe faith is a good thing but putting your faith in what a bunch of dead guys said 2000 years ago? Swing that mental pick the other direction
laharl808 9 months ago
1 to 3 years is a time gap that doesn't fall into a eye witness spectrum of time. Eye witness implies that you actually SAW something, not hear about it a year later. That given it WAS the best we could EXPECT at the time they were written, unfortunately times have changed and so have our expectations, I meant unfortunate for you.
laharl808 9 months ago
@laharl808 OK...How do we know Ceaser crossed the Rubicon? How do we know Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, existed? How do we know Herodotos wrote the Illiad? How do we know know anything prior to the Middle Ages? The New testament is the most verified ancient document ever. We have less than 10 manuscripts of Emperor Tiberius who was the the Roman ruler during Christ time, there ar over 40 mentioning Jesus by name,including secular pagan Tacitus and Jewish historian Josepheus.
dane18owen 9 months ago
It never ceases to amaze me how poor the standard of evidence used by Christians really is, although I guess that's the only way one can actually be a Christian...
OutOfTheBoxThinker 11 months ago
In spite of everything mentioned in this video, what do you say to Muslims who say the same thing about proof of the "real God", Allah? They sound exactly like you and are CERTAIN that Allah is the one, true god and not Yaweh.
So who are we to believe?
And don't get me started on the other 468 "major gods" man has invented:
Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Allah, Amaterasu,An, Anansi, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, etc
RockyRacoon18 11 months ago
also, if someone lives a perfect life of righteousness, always donating to the poor, always doing the morally right thing, helping others, and basically everything the Bible told them to do, but they DID NOT believe to accept Christ as their Savior, do they go to hell? should they suffer for simply not believing in Christ and being wrong even though they carried out his message? if they do go to hell then why bother even trying.
elmolovescookies 1 year ago
your evidence of Jesus is the New Testament? The Bible cannot be used as historical fact. Also the eyewitnesses of few 2,000 years ago written on paper and tablets? that is no "Evidence".
elmolovescookies 1 year ago
Did someone piss in your Quisp?
PragueFanity 1 year ago
After an unbeliever does a little "research" he or she will be able to find what may appear to be good arguments against Christianity..but true understanding of the Old and New Testament will prove that many of these claims made by skeptics show a lack of biblical knowledge as a whole
Truth4truthIzm 1 year ago
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
AnnRKey 1 year ago
Good job!
Bill is not slandering religion, but Christ.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
How do you explain the fact that Egyptian worshiped Horus way before the birth of Christ? They couldn't possibly borrow anything from Christianity, because there was no Christianity.
As for virgin birth...does it really matter? Are you saying that it happened? I mean virgin birth...really?
Chandu83 1 year ago
Ha ha....."Jesus preached against the love of money".......how does this not apply to the rich? I think the rich love money. Bill would watch your rambling analysis and probably laugh. All I see here is tunnel vision.....
BreakMyFall2008 1 year ago
Romans 1:18-19 says nothing about original sin at all. It's not even hinted. He actually says how man's wickidness corrupts affirming again that we sin. Our sins are our own--not Adam's.
Romans 3:9 again says nothing of the sort.
Verse 17 does not suggest that sin is passed through blood or any such inclinations.
regelemihai 1 year ago
1 Corinthians 15:22 simply says that death was brought foth through Adam because he introduced sin into the world and therefore Jesus came to atone for it. Romans 3:23 clearly says that "we all have sinned." We're judged by our actions, not the ones of a mythical figure thousands of years ago; Which makes sense becaue original sin isn't even recognized in Judaism. Adam's fall in Gensis is his alone.
regelemihai 1 year ago
Original sin is not taught in the NT. When Paul says that as Adam has sinned and death entered the world through him he is not saying that we are tainted with his sin and that babies are born sinful. Quite the contrary, the NT keep affirming how important children are and how one must strive to be like them. Romans 5:12 says just that.
regelemihai 1 year ago
Catholics are Christians man.
Childinfaith 2 years ago
why should we go to hell if we do wrong if we didnt ask to be here?i dont see the point in punishing something you created because that person made a mistake. why not just make them disapear . a god that tortures dosent seem like a god i want to be a part of!!!!!!!!!!!
yourallbrainwashed 2 years ago
just because a book or books say theres a god or jesus dosent mean there is one!
we have no proof of who actually wrote those books ,and neither do you!!!
yourallbrainwashed 2 years ago
Critical thinking is important, because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, explain, and restructure our thinking, decreasing thereby the risk of adopting, acting on, or thinking with, a false belief. However, even with knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, mistakes can happen due to a thinker's inability to apply the methods or because of character traits such as egocentrism.
1yonny 2 years ago
See I think your problem as well as others is your relying on the Internet for your information that not true scholarship because certain people have agendas so they copy and paste information because they people like you are too lazy think for yourself so I suggest you go to the library and do some real research before you so arrogantly proclaim some ones work as debunked.
So then the question becomes Who are the sources of our sources and what make us believe their correct?.......
1yonny 2 years ago
just because my sources came from the internet that doesnt mean my sources are false, and just because you spend your research more in library doesnt mean your research are correct. use your critical thinking like what you were suggesting.
show me the documents that the parallels where earlier than Jesus.
gouki333 2 years ago
1yonny 2 years ago
i checked your sources and i cant find any primary sources of Christianity borrowed their story from those other deities stuff in there. plus the Historians and scholars that i provided already debunked the parallels between them, and the so called parallels where dated around 150AD. so whose copying who if you`ll say someones copying?
one of your source is the Catholic Encyclopedia? are you kidding me? do you even know when did the council of Nicaea started?
gouki333 2 years ago
how is an eye witness account proof? if i say i saw bigfoot is that proof? need to face it Maher clean your guys clock.
4pmac 2 years ago
so your saying the story of horus was taken from
the story of jesus.......... dude come on........
The story of Horus is the most ancient myth..........
How do I know? .........the Pyramid revel this truth........
So dont take my word research it for your self..
So your entire argument is debuke.......
1yonny 2 years ago
i didnt take you word for it so i did have my own research.
the Horus myth was indeed came before Christ but Horus` story and other myths was re-written several times depending on whoever is the ruler, and the so called Jesus story parallels didnt occur until 2nd century AD. the God - myth parallel ideas came from the satanist HP Blavatsky to discredit Christianity.
gouki333 2 years ago
"Myth parallel ideas came from the satanist HP Blavatsky to discredit Christianity" is not the point the point is that the Jesus story was taken from the Egyptian story of Horus "the original story" thus making it a plagiarized lie it doesn't matter when the parallel occurred ......The Question is Why did it Occur? and Why was it changed or I am I missing something..
1yonny 2 years ago
"Myth parallel ideas came from the satanist HP Blavatsky to discredit Christianity" - is actually the whole point. even the historians of Horus, Krishna, ,Buddha, Atis etc... said that the so called parallels are wrong. Those people whose promoting the so called parallels dont even provide any reliable source other than quoting Blavatsky`s book. That is the whole point of this, and if you will study their plans further you will understand why discrediting Christianity is very important to them.
gouki333 2 years ago
Who are these Historian? and How do they Know?
1yonny 2 years ago
Chun-fang Yu Sheng Yen - Professor in Chinese Buddhist Studies Columbia University.
Andrew T. Fear - Professor of Classics and Ancient Mysteries of University of Manchester in England.
Philo of Alexandria
Dr. Gary Habbermas DEPT. OF PHILOSOPHY & THEOLOGY LIBERTY UNIVERSITY LYNCHBURG
Dr. Anthony Flew - British Philosopher expert in Philosophy of Religion
and more...
i`ll ask you this, what`s your source? why did you believe that Jesus`s story was just a copy?
Peter Joseph? Acharya S? J. Maxwell?
gouki333 2 years ago
If the Bible is the best your god can do, then that is pretty pathetic.
InfidelisMax 2 years ago
why it is pathetic?
gouki333 2 years ago
Doug, I've watched a few of your videos and they have given me a lot to think about. It is awesome to see Christians who actually study apologetics and know why they believe what they believe. Out of curiosity, are you a member of any specific denomination?
binaural24 2 years ago
The Atheist spamming this page are making painfully evident just how religulous they are.
52blades 2 years ago 2
Great stuff!
mistermiguel17 2 years ago
Somehow this doesn't sound like a critique of a movie to me but rather just apologetics.
onotheo 3 years ago
Hehehe, it so funny seeing all this pathetic attempts to justify religion and faith with "logical" arguments. You just can't win this one, understand? :D There is NOTHING logical about it! NO-THING!
But then again, what did I expect from the people, who by the same "reasoning" came to conclusion, that the universe is 6000 years old. Religulous, that's exactly what you are! :D
kurlek 3 years ago
Musickle here (I can't comment on my on vid for some reaosn) I never made the claim the earth was 6000 years old, nor do I believe that. Also, a refutation is not an argument. The illogic is entirely yours.
shot380 3 years ago
Funny, you seem to think you know what logical argumentation is, and yet you argue from ridicule. Maybe you should bone up on your logic 101 before you opine on who is being illogical and who isn't.
the13thof12 2 years ago
it's ok... ignorance is bliss as they say.
let them be happy with half answers.
intelliGENeration 2 years ago
Comment removed
kurlek 3 years ago
There was no worldwide flood as the Bible describes and Jesus erroneously confirms. If the Bible is the best your god can do then he is a joke.
InfidelisMax 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
religion is crap, end of story. you all belive in some story that is written 2 thousand years ago. get a life .
devjer07 3 years ago
amen brawski says this ironic person
William971 3 years ago
Dude you are boring as hell !
ArcadianoX 3 years ago
the Pope is just the Bishop of Rome.. so actually yes, the idea of Bishops are entirely Biblical, and the idea that there exists a succession from Peter, the rock (Matt. 16:18), is very much Biblical--- The Pope's office is Biblical. Also I'm not sure when you said 'most Christians' don't acknowledge this, .. almost 2 out of 3 Christians are Catholic Christians.. so technically most Christians do hold to this idea.
Theologica37 3 years ago
in the verse in latin petrO is peter and petrA is the rock. petrO is a stone/rock, can be moved and taken out of place. which is what happened when peter denied christ 3 times, jesus rebuked him in mat 16:23, and when he cut the soldiers ear. but petrA is a firm rock and jesus is the petrA, also check out 1 corinth 10:4 in latin. also with the keys, check matthew 18:18 where all the disciples are given the power to bind and lossen. as binding is preaching the gospel and loosing is decieving.
hermanoguzman 3 years ago
Thank you so much for making this... I was preparing my refutation of his arguments and now prefer to use yours :)
gCuezy 3 years ago
I've just watched it and noticed he used the Horus argument. Weird.
DeeperRootsProject 3 years ago
Mr. Musickle, google Zeitgeist and watch the first part on religion and maybe you'll realize the truth about where religions come from. There is no doubt that the Egyptians version existed first. Also read The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S. The son of God is the sun of God. That is the chapter featured in the film Zeitgeist. In ancient times, people all over the world worshiped the sun and it was known as the Savior of the World, The Light of the World, for obvious reasons. Nice guitars dude
thisislogout 3 years ago
That movie has been disproved or debunked, please look it up. Honest. :)
jizzy009 3 years ago
And the books documenting the history of Harry Potter, are they proof that Harry Potter is/was real and wandering around somewhere in England? I'm not trying to be a smartass.. but saying a book is proof of existence/reality is incredibly flawed logic. Look how many texts have been written about Spider-Man. Many more than 66 'books'. And those books mention real places, too. Say.. New York. Spider-Man books also reference many real places and events.
jesterspace 3 years ago
I pointed to books claiming to record real history written by both Christian and non-Christian sources. As for the latter, Tactitus is considered by many to the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Seutonius actually used official records to write his history. Please name all the credible historians who claim Harry Potter or Spider-man is real.The flawed logic is yours.
shot380 3 years ago
Again, all you have is an argument from authority. Do these historians believe in Jesus because they were raised in a Christian culture or do they have evidence to back it up?
As for Spiderman, he's got far more texts attributing to him and far more witnesses of his power & existence than Jesus: Harry Osbourne, Mary Jane Watson, Felicia Hardy, Aunt May, Dr. Octavius (and he's even got a doctor credential). So either Spiderman is a superhero, a liar, or a lunatic, right?
mjr256 3 years ago
I did my specialist degree in ancient literature and know the difference between mythological character (teutonic gods and godesses for example) and a historical figure, rooted in real time events, like Jesus of Nazareth. You're not comparing apples with apples, just flying sphagetti monsters with Zeus!
laurencecooper 3 years ago
& again you're applying ad populum argument. 1 man can disagree w/ the whole world & still be right. I don't care WHO believes Jesus was an historical figure, only whether they have good reason to. So by all means provide me with the BEST evidence you have to support your assertion that Jesus was an historical figure.
mjr256 3 years ago
Evidence might include "Christian" texts including the NT, non-Christian texts like Tacitus, NT claims that Jesus makes for himself examined within the context of Jewish history, subsequent historical impact that is not replicated in scale or quality by mythological figures, personal experience of faith, friends and acquaintances testimony. Miracles I have witnessed; an unbeliever who got converted to the fact of Christ's reality, and so on.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
As I've already point out, none of these texts are contemporaneous (within 10 years of an alleged event). This is what professional historians look for. There's historical impact w/ regards to the religion, no less impacting than that of Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism. If Jesus was executed in 33 CE, nothing seemed to change & nobody seemed to care about it for at least 40 years, when suddenly stories that the illiterate shepherds suddenly found people to write down their stories.
mjr256 3 years ago
Ok, so why did these shepherds (who on earth are these shepherd guys??) find people to write down their stories? Which stories- Why?
laurencecooper 3 years ago
I know some1 who was converted from Christianity to Islam, so I guess by your standards of evidence, that must mean Islam is the true religion.
Obviously your Obama analogy is a false analogy. Obama actual exists in the present physical world & can easily have his existence verified. The evidence is all around us. The same cannot be said of Jesus, Buddha, & Poseidon--none of whom have anywhere near that level of evidence, making this an absurd straw man.
mjr256 3 years ago
People reach different conclusions about the significance of Jesus. Muslims don't try and dispute his existence. The evidence of Obama's existence is in books, on the TV. Handed on- just like the NT eye witness accounts were. To deny that evidence you need to propose an elaborate conspiracy theory about why people back then wrote about Jesus.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
No conpiracy theory required. Read Karen Armstrong, Bart Ehrman, Joseph Campbell, Anthropology, Media Studies & study how information travels in oral cultures, Marshall McCluhan, Lewis Mumford, how urban myths & tall tales are spread, or just play the children's game "Telephone."
mjr256 3 years ago
If you think that Jesus and Poseidon are on the same level in terms of historical credibility as real people then I guess we'll have to leave it there; the deconstructionist approach tends to meander down the road of absurdity.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
I'm still waiting for 1 good piece of evidence that Jesus is a real person & an answer to the half dozen questions I've asked you. You've already stated that your beliefs stem from faith & anecdotal evidence, the 2 least reliable forms of evidence. So stop pretending that you give a damn what historians think. You only only accept the views of those who agree w/ you. AND YOU KNOW IT.
mjr256 3 years ago
That's a lot of assumptions to make in the short time I've chatted with you :) Actually it is you who are on the back foot. Let me restate my case. You are arguing an improbable position from the start in saying Jesus never existed. I have personal experience of faith, the NT record, the views of most serious historians, archaeological evidence (the tomb of Peter, the Roman record relating to Pilate) and yes, anecdotal evidence on my side.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
let me clarify: By personal experience of faith I mean having been convinced of the reality of God through experience of the power of Jesus Christ and being taken from a position of not believing to having a belief that Jesus is who he said he was.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
You continue to dodge my questions. And cannot tell me how you know Jesus is responsible for your personal experiences and not leprechauns or genies, Poseidon, Amon Ra, Thor, Allah, or any other magical figure w/ equivalent scriptural basis. Real historians recognize the importance of contemporaneous accounts. That nobody bothered to write down Jesus' amazing story until 40 years after his alleged ministry, that's pretty extraordinary.
mjr256 3 years ago
Please allow that there is less textual evidence for leprechauns or genies than there is for the disciples, apostles, Christ, Pilate and so on. We have to start somewhere. The reason I am a Christian is that my personal experience of God corresponds to what Jesus says about himself as recorded in the NT. I agree your point about contemporaneous accounts; fair. But I think that Paul's writing & Peter's letters count as such.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
As does the creedal statement cited by Musickle found in 1 Cor 3-8
laurencecooper 3 years ago
It's very hard for a Christian to explain a personal experience.
"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3:5-8)
Afrikitty 3 years ago 2
Jesus said "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" (John 3:12)
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
Christian experience will be revealed you through the Holy Spirit.
Afrikitty 3 years ago 2
Okay, that's not "a lot of assumptions to make in a short time." That's one assumption: Paul made up the story. Period. Then everything else make perfect sense w/o the need to invoke what is by definition the most implausible assumption possible, magic. But you seem determined to continue using an ad populum argument despite it being a logical fallacy. AGAIN, I DON'T CARE WHO BELIEVES OR HOW MANY BELIEVE--ONLY WHETHER THEY HAVE GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE!
mjr256 3 years ago
If Paul made up the story he had the backing of Peter and other NT apostles. He also gained wide acceptance of his resurrection story from a wide ensemble of people who should have been sceptical, by which I mean the Jewish audience and the disciples/apostles who had witnessed the crucifixion.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
I think you are vexed because of the weakness of the position you hold. It really does put you in a small minority of people who want to believe in the improbable (the non existence of the person Jesus) based upon your strident denial of the possibility of supernatural reality impinging upon your version of reality. It causes you to continually try and pigeon hole Jesus Christ into the fiction list rather than grapple with who he really was and is.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
Peter & Pilate being historical figures doesn't validate the whole story any more than the existence of Stan Lee validates that Spiderman is real. You have no understanding or interest in real historical methodology & you reject any historical analysis that doesn't support what you've already presupposed. I don't have any respect for apologetics & confirmation bias, so I see no way to have a meaningful conversation about historical record.
mjr256 3 years ago
Peter validated Paul's authority as an apostle in his letter. Can we start with an aceptance by you that these were real people?
laurencecooper 3 years ago
You are right to say that one man can disagree and still be right. But if one man tells me he doesn't believe in Barack Obama I'd say he's probably wrong. And then if he says "well, you've never seen him" I still reckon Barack Obama is real and he's wrong.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
Faith literally means belief w/o evidence, so that's no help, especially since Muslims will say the same thing about their faith, which I take it is unconvincing even to you. Do you really have 2000 year-old friends or are these just people who believe due to faith? Are you sure the miracles you witnessed were from Jesus & not from Zeus, leprachans, or Harry Potter? Can you prove these miracles actually were miracles? cont'd
mjr256 3 years ago
That's a poor definition of faith. Oxf.Dict. - "complete trust in someone or thing" In my case the person and work of Christ. I am open to people who share their spiritual experience with me; I'd agree in God's existence with Muslims. Not sure why you have to compare Jesus to fictional creations like Harry Potter in that Dawkinsish way; the apostles didn't make billions from their accounts of the resurrection. It got them killed.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
Yes & I find your assertions that your dogmatic, authoritative, "complete trust in someone or thing" is objective "evidence" for Jesus extraordinarily dubious & arrogant. I compare Jesus to Harry Potter because both are fictional characters w/ magic powers. It's kinda a no-brainer comparison. & Lois Lanes didn't make billions from her accounts of Superman either, because she too was FICTIONAL! But after the fact, Big Religion has evolved into one of the most profitable industries in the world.
mjr256 3 years ago
I just advised you on a better definition of faith. It is not unreasoning by definition, it does not mean "belief without evidence" as you wrongly asserted. Faith is not anti-intellectual per se. Made up? Paul the Apostle wasn't made up, nor was Tacitus, or Josephus, or John Chrysostum. Paul didn't make up the resurrection for cash - and I also make zilch money from my faith!
laurencecooper 3 years ago
You've got nothing but Paul's word for Jesus and his magic powers. Josephus specific references to Jesus were later redactions. And Josephus and all the others you mention weren't even alive during Jesus' alleged ministry & are going on nothing but stories they've heard. Further, nobody knows anything about who the gospel writers were. You've got nothing. No holy grail, no spear of destiny, no ark of the covenant, not even an empty tomb.
mjr256 3 years ago
Paul's words were backed up by Peter and he's authenticated by acceptance in the canon of scripture and early church tradition. You yourself acknowledge below that the Josephus "redaction" does not invalidate his witness. Your argument boils down to this: let me touch his wounds or he didn't exist.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
If a historian writes after their subject lived that does not invalidate their testimony. You accept that... Come on.. I don't know about holy grail, but I know you are clutching at straws here! We're all going on stories of the past, to coin your expression.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
Do you accept Paul & Peter were real? If so do you accept that Peter backed up Paul's words in his letter? Who will you accept actually existed? Let's start there. Which of the named characters in the NT were real?
laurencecooper 3 years ago
both peter and paul were real we have secular historical writings that they were
foundedonfaith1776 3 years ago 2
A small but significant point which I feel you may be able to accept. The NT was written by different authors, yes? - whoever you think they were? Those various writers (not just Paul) credit Jesus with (your words) magic powers. 1 Peter 1; 3-4, 1 John 2; 1-2 and various others
laurencecooper 3 years ago
Um, no. What is MOST LIKELY is that the passages written about the destruction of the temple were written in 70 CE after it had actually happened and were then claimed after the fact this is something Jesus had foretold 40 years earlier. Evidence? Who are you kidding? Where's the archaeological evidence, numerous corroborating accounts, enemy attestation, signs of similar supernatural occurrences in the present world? You don't even have an empty tomb! Grow up. Jesus is imaginary. Get over it.
mjr256 3 years ago
The problem is that the New Testament books that Luke wrote in the early/mid 60's, BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem. For more information see the videos Where Did the New Testament Come From?, Is the New Testament Reliable, and Did Jesus Rise From the Dead. The existence of a historical Jesus is accepted by even the most liberal scholars and non-Christian scholars. Only the ignorant (some willfully ignorant) hold this view.
shot380 3 years ago
Mark came first around 70 CE. The other Gospels borrowed from Mark's account & thus came later. This is well established among historical scholars on all sides of the debate. But these types of arguments are a waste of time as they're mere arguments from authority & ad populum. It's not who believes Jesus was an historical figure that matters but whether they have good reason. & w/o any good evidence, the Jesus hypothesis is sunk. & if it weren't & Jesus was just some guy, Christianity is sunk.
mjr256 3 years ago
Your dates are completely and utterly wrong. Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny all wrote OVER 40 YEARS AFTER Jesus' alleged ministry, meaning that none of them were even alive then. And Josephus was talking about a person with the title Cristos, not Jesus. Please stop citing things you've never read and know absolutely nothing about. And please stop plagiarizing other people's ideas, especially when those ideas are false claims.
mjr256 3 years ago
Musickle here (I can't let me reply to my own vid). I clearly state in the video that those sources are 1st cent/early 2nd cent. sources. Josephus indeed referred to Jesus by name. Though parts of Josephus' quote has almost certainly been changed by Christian scribes over the years, no scholar I've found argues that naming Jesus was part of the changes. Aramaic copies of this passage include Jesus' name but not the disputed passages. Please stop critiquing things you know nothing about.
shot380 3 years ago
Your citing their writings as evidence of Jesus' existence. If I write a story about the HAL 9000 40 years later, that is not evidence for its existence. Cite we where Josephus refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth. And please explain why a text that you freely admit has been redacted after the fact is a reliable source to justify basing an entire world view on.
mjr256 3 years ago
shut up and take your medicine before you are placed back in the mental institution.
rfranklinw1 3 years ago
There are lights in your eyes ;-)
CpuModern 3 years ago
3:23 The prophecy of the virgin birth: Isaiah's original says "a young woman", the translation into the greek septuagint used as reference by the NT authors is simply erroneous.
The fact that none of the gospel writers could possibly have been present, and that this means that no matter how you twist it, even at best the virgin birth is hearsay, is also worth noting.
Also note that the Sanhedrin 43a section dealing with Jesus is disputed in terms of historical value. It also contradicts NT.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
"The prophecy of the virgin birth: Isaiah's original says "a young woman""
It means an unmarried young woman. (It certainly hints that the woman would be a virgin)
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
The claim that there's a prophecy of a virgin giving birth in Isaiah is wrong. The Hebrew word does not mean virgin, it simply means maiden.
vital427 3 years ago
You're kidding, right? So the prophecy fortells that a young maiden will be with child... I can imagine everyone saying, "really? A woman will conceive and bare a child? No kidding, we thought that men were the one show have children. Wow, weren't we dumb".
It's not all that extraordinary for a young maiden to have a child. It would be extraordinary if a virgin had a child.
waltherchemnitz 3 years ago
It's always blasphemous to ask anything that doesn't paint the bible in a positive light (shocking considering the old testament)
If I asked "what if Mary was sleeping around, or was raped, btu in those days, adultery resulted in a stoning. If that were the case, I'm sure Mary would go as far as claiming a holy something or other." If I ask that, I'd probably be treated differently at a church, but certainly not treated as someone who asks a good question.
Kungfuish 3 years ago 2
Very true. And my guess would be, Mary (if she existed) gave regular birth that was declared "virgin birth" probably a century or more after her death. I don't think the Jews of old really believed in "virgin births" (hmmm, we still don't).
vital427 3 years ago
excellent...
LiftAloft 3 years ago
Who said that a prophecy has to foretell something extraordinary in terms of the child's birth? Does a prophecy require to have something extraordinary in it to be a prophecy? No. It just needs to foretell some event taking place in the future. and that can be accomplished as well even without a virgin birth.
The problem is that you are using what you are considering Jesus' miraculous birth to justify "the prophecy of virgin birth", which you in turn using to justify Jesus' virginal birth.
vital427 3 years ago
True, Hebrew has a specific word for virgin and Isaiah didnt use it. Instead he used a word meaning young woman. Virginity is often a part of what this word means, but not necessarily. But in the Greek translation of the Old Testament the word used in Isaiah specifically means virgin. The Greek translation was made by Jewish scholars about 250 years before Jesus' birth. They knew what tradition said Isaiah meant by the term and translated it virgin. So virgin is an accurate translation.
shot380 3 years ago
That's funny, because G-d didn't tell all those Jewish scholars what he meant. He only told Isaiah (if anyone at all), and Isaiah does not explain whether she was or was not to have a broken hymen. I would like to know why it was that G-d would allow such a small little matter as a word meaning lead His people Israel astray (which if you are a Christian you must think happened) and did not prevent it, by using the word that clearly meant virgin.
vital427 3 years ago
The meaning of the word did not lead Jews astray. It was their rejection of Jesus that did that. Their rejection of Jesus was reflected in such things as changing their understanding of Isaiah's meaning. Isaiah's meaning was preserved in commentaries and oral tradition. Only after Jesus was said to have fulfilled this prophecy was it's interpretation changed to exclude "virgin."
shot380 3 years ago
That doesn't change what I just said. G-d has the ability to pretty much direct his people in the "right" direction, and he doesn't do this statement?
"Are you using real sources on this Only after Jesus was said to have fulfilled this prophecy was it's interpretation changed to exclude "virgin.""
Where did you get this? A time machine, where you witnessed this? Would you like to accuse Jews of other conspiracies?
vital427 3 years ago
Sources: 1) An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Henry Barclay Swete.
2)Introduction to the Old Testament, RK Harrison.
It was in the early second century that the innovation of rejecting "virgin" as the meaning of Is 7:14 occurred, around the time of Aquila's Greek Trans. of the OT.
shot380 3 years ago
In addition, if the word meant "young woman" and not "virgin" then the whole verse makes no sense. The verse states a sign will be given. The sign is that the virgin shall conceive and bear a son. A young woman conceiving and bearing a son is an everyday event that is no sign at all and renders the verse meaningless.
As for why God chooses to do what he does, I don't presume to know unless he has expressly revealed it in scripture.
shot380 3 years ago
Excellent!
AwokenSpirit 3 years ago
Good job! You absolutely tore Maher's claims to shreds.
miked518 3 years ago
Eye witness testimony is considered innacurate and unreliable in modern courts today.
Horus was around well before Jesus. Otherwise, what was Moses on about against the Pharoe?
You're right about the Pope, Maher was only criticising Catholics there.
Look up Rabbi Lotker, author of "A Christian's Guide to Judaism," he explains why the Jews don't accept the 'original sin' thing.
I'm not going to touch the 'prophecy' thing.
TheWindClaw 3 years ago 2
Really interesting Horus comment. Could you elaborate for me? What do you mean?
laurencecooper 3 years ago
With respect, at least in English courts, the testimony of eye witnesses is used extensively. That's why we make a distinction concerning the reliability of the witness. Are they reliable or unreliable? And what was their perspective on events as they happened? These questions determine the value of the evidence they offer.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
The claim in the video is not the Christianity predates Hours, it is that the parallels between Horus and Jesus cannot be dated any earlier than the 2nd century AD making Horus the copycat, not Jesus.
And just because Jews don't accept original sin (according to your source) does not mean it is not taught in the Bible.
shot380 3 years ago
Uhh, your claims of proof fail.
Stop trying to pass your argument off as factual. "Fact" is a word beyond your understanding.
I've never seen Religulous, but I have watched your flawed logic in action.
Moron.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Hi, not wanting to get into a heated debate; but I'm not clear what this guy has done to deserve your reproof. Historians are used to accepting "facts" such as the existence of people (Christ, Caesar, Genghis Khan) on the strength of written testimonial. That is a point being made here quite well. No serious historian disputes Jesus Christ existed, in the same way as they don't dispute Alexander the Great was a real person.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
Religion has been a dictator of recorded history.
Blind acceptance of fact without evidence is theocratic science.
Can you believe a boycott is in play against this movie? How different is it than book burning? Religion is setting humanity back a thousand years.
Kungfuish 3 years ago
I remember the boycott of "The Last Temptation of Christ". Silly. The crucifixion was the most realistic until "the passion". I wasn't a Christian then. But nor do I think now that trying to gag your opponents is a good strategy. I modestly suggest to you that my faith in who Jesus is iS compatible with furthering the good of humanity. I work to help broken people fulfill their potential in life; intellectually, socially, emotionally- and spiritually.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
Compatable? I wasn't argueing that. I do however feel that it IS dishonest.
Tell me, am I broken? Would you be so condescending by telling me I'm lost unless I accept your religion?
Kungfuish 3 years ago
Ok, I will instead say that I think my faith is compatible with asking questions and being honest.
As for your own brokenness, I can't say. I think that most people carry some pain around with them. I wouldn't want to be condescending to you in any discussion. I can only share my testimony of finding faith in God, where I was once sceptical.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
"No serious historian disputes Jesus Christ existed, in the same way as they don't dispute Alexander the Great was a real person."
Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman--just to name a few.
mjr256 3 years ago
That is disingenuous. Ehrman, Carrier, Price promote a humanist/skeptic agenda. That's like trying to say that Adolf Hitler is ok because the scholar & historian David Irving says so. Would you want to take your stand with Nazi apologists & revisionists?
laurencecooper 3 years ago
That argument works both ways. This is like David Irving claiming that other historians are promoting the Holocaust-believer agenda. The only distinction you can make is by ad populum, not by evidence since there is none. You're going to have to back up your statement with evidence because the evidence they present speaks for itself. Ehrman, for instance, was a Christian going into it & continued calling himself a Christian long after Misquoting Jesus was released.
mjr256 3 years ago
If the "evidence" provided by these "speaks for itself" why do hardly any historians & textual critics accept it? No; they roundly reject the "Jesus as Myth" hypothesis- as any sensible person would reject the minority claim that Hitler did not approve the holocaust. If we just deny Jesus existed, we need to be intellectually honest & accept that there is less textual evidence for the existence of other historical figures such as Caesar.
laurencecooper 3 years ago
Even apologetics like Josh McDowell & Mike Lacona don't disagree over the evidence. I don't know any historians who disagree w/ the facts presented by Ehrman, Price, Carrier, or Armstrong. They might not have reached the same conclusions as the authors but that is not required. You can disagree w/ their conclusions but disagreeing over their evidence or methods is something entirely different.
mjr256 3 years ago
You really should read something not written by christians...
phkaddoum 3 years ago 2
You really should read something not written by skeptics.
waltherchemnitz 3 years ago
Should the the christian bible count as such? If it is so, just don't tell me I'm supposed to take all the magic paths as historical facts.
Yes, we will all agree that history points out to the existence of Jesus and many other people, I give you that, even Maher would. But let's leave the turning water into wine and walking on the water to David Coperfield and other professionals.
If christians accepted that many paths told by the bible are cleary metaphors Maher wouldnt have so many arguments.
phkaddoum 3 years ago 4
By the early beginning of this video you can tell you're dealing with a religious nut that's trying (very hard! lol!) to pass as an intellectual, but, like every other one of them, he has to invariably resort to a constant monotone torrent of religious jibberish and bible quotation; Like any reasonable man would concede as an argument that his interpretation of scriptures and history overrides all others...
Wise are the ones who doubts. Subscribing to religion is giving power to an institution..
worldismorphing 3 years ago
You mean something like, oh say, the script to Religulous?
shot380 3 years ago
Truly excellent work brother. You are sound!
Favorited.
NephilimFree 3 years ago