This is based on complete nonsense. The New Testament scriptures on which his whole argument is predicated were selected by men because they conformed to a popular canon. Other gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, the Sophia of Jesus, were rejected because they did not conform to this canon. Some of the rejected gospels were declared to be heresy. The New Testament was clearly crafted by early churchmen, not god.
@Douglaslid actually the other books that didn't make it into the canon had various historical innacuracies about the culture and such. The names they used and such. Other reasons were the time of writing, some were written more than 2 generations after Christ, which is reaching the length of time where fabrication can start to creep in.
The 4 gospels were all written withing 1 generation which means it's too early for fabrications to emerge. It wasn't "crafted" like you think.
@MeTolerateYou There are very real differences between the canon of the synoptic gospels and those that were excluded. Papyri of the Gospel of Thomas for example have been dated earlier than any of the synoptic gospels including Mark and Luke. In my opinion the NT gospels were primarily selected in order to refute the Gnostic and Arian traditions in favour of the Roman Church with its emphasis on the Trinitarian creed, male supremacy and the need for priests to intercede between man and god..
@SupremeAmerican I was raised a Catholic, so I know a fair bit, and have been immersed in the bible since birth... I don't deny my narcissism, so 'calling' me one does not bother me... My spirituality is the level of perspective I have on my narcissism, which I think is good. I like spirituality informed by direct experience, and evidence, of which there is plenty. Reciting scripture in with a lot of conviction and emotion might carry a lot of charge and resonance, but it does not go deep.
crummy logic... it is enclosed in its own terms (which are taking a lot for granted, and leaps of unproven stages in a process of reason) rather than anything remotely objective... I have a spirituality of my own, inspired my my contact with God, rather than some dumbass take on ancient, flawed books.
@rrippp Its quite obvious from your comment you don't know the facts of what Christianity is, nor have an accurate account about its literature. If you're going to criticize something, it would serve you better to actually know what it is you're criticizing. If not, you just look like a foolish narcissist. - Sincerely, an educated, non-religious guy.
Shuzanne, in all honesty and humility, if any of us could have answered that, we'd be all knowing for to know this would mean to know immeasurably more than we already know.
You ask a great question, but with our limited understanding of already natural issues and topics, I personally believe that we would not be able to fathom such an awesome piece of information as "to understand God".
(continued)...In itself, if there is evidence to prove a Creator, then He must be God indeed. Meaning, if God is God, then He cannot be a limited God but an ominiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent person who cannot be explained by mere human levels of intellect and language.
To say, "understand God" therefore is considered to be an oxymoron in itself.
God is, by definition, a necessary being. He exists eternally without cause and is dependent upon nothing for his existence.
Notice how many atheists try to say exactly the same thing for the universe itself - that somehow it has always been here (despite the fact that modern science points towards all space, time, matter and energy being only 13.5 bil years old from the Big Bang).
So, something has to be the unmoved mover, and the universe is a crummy candidate. It is contingent.
Also, the Gospels put the story in the time frame of roughly 30 A.D. So whether the Temple is still standing or not whenever they wrote it is totally irrelevant, meaning Turek has no point.
So there you have it - a bunch of dishonest smoke and mirrors by a person with as much integrity as a crooked used car salesman. But I can't blame the atheist. His audience are such rubes. There's good money in books.
Notice how Turek does nothing to prove that whatever creed he's talking about was around in 30 A.D.? I guess he felt like skipping that.
He also does nothing to prove that Luke wrote the book of Luke. He neglects to tell you that this was actually the best guess the early church could come up. That's right - a guess. They didn't know. Gee, I wonder why?
How? Do explain. If he's not lying, explain how he KNOWS.
Also, Josephus' work is "contaminated evidence" and would be dismissed in any court of law since Christians had their hands on it and interpolated/forged the Testimonium Flavianum. In other words, he doesn't know if Josephus wrote that.
Check out ProfMTH's "DID the Disciples Die For a Lie?" series on YouTube to see clear evidence that the early church made stuff up about martyrdom.
@highwind8124 Just watched the vid you mentioned. The biggest argument it gives, that is, the one is spends most time on is the Cog. Dis. Management. A reading of the Gospels reveals many of the disciples were fearful once the Passion began and fled as they didn't want to be killed. Others were doubtful after the resurrection. In short, they went from fearful and doubting to courageous and faithful, but they were anything but deluded men with wishful thoughts, a must for CDM to take place.
Then watch it again, because you completely missed the parts about the early church proven to have made up stories about how apostles died, church leaders claiming hugely contradictory accounts.
@highwind8126@highwind8126 James died in Acts 12, John was tortured and exiled to the island of Patmos in Rev 1. Luke is a contemp. who corroborated what the eyewitnesses said, even if you discount the Test. Flav. We also have evidence from Joseph. in regards to John the Baptist and persecution of XNs. So what? you say? If they were being martyred for their faith, what makes you think the original disciples werent martyred for their faith as well?
@highwind8124 Sure I'm quoting the Bible - what's wrong with that? It contains eyewitness and corrobrative testimony. MTH didn't prove anything in his video, CDM is not an argument he can use.
He pointed out that the early church lied about martyrdom. They made stuff up. Watch it again if you have to. CDM was briefly discussed, not they key point, and you haven't disproved that possibility.
@highwind8124 It's not circ. reas. to look into a historical document for proof. I'm not treating the Bible as a book, but a historical document, at least the NT since that's what we're speaking about for right now. The NT has eyewitness details. The proof you need is found by simply reading and seeing for yourself.
"It's not circ. reas. to look into a historical document for proof."
You haven't proven the Bible is a historical document rather than a religious extent, or to what extent is it historical and to what extent religious. You're just slapping the label on according to your whims.
"The NT has eyewitness details."
Prove it.
"The proof you need is found by simply reading and seeing for yourself."
I have. Now feel free to point out a shred of proof from it.
@highwind8124 IDT he pointed out much of anything to be honest. Yes CMD was briefly discussed, but by simply reading the story and taking it at face value, even if you disagree with the historicity of it, just by taking it at face value only a moron would conclude it was CMD based on the reasons I gave, specifically they forsook Christ before the crucifixion and had no reason to believe their fate would be anything less than Christ's if they continued to associate w/ him WIW Peter denied him X3.
"IDT he pointed out much of anything to be honest."
Your using the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument. That video series proves we have no proof of any of any eyewitness martyrs. Your mere thinking that nothing was pointed out either shows you're willfully not paying attention or lying.
@highwind8124 You keep asking me to prove it, that's fine, but what would consittute proof for you? The proof is in the reading of the storyline. Even if you just accept it as the story for the sake of argument and so I can make my illustration, you cannot deny unless you are willfully ignorant that the disciples forsook Christ before the cruc. because just reading the text will leave you no other options. Mk. 14:15 "they all left him and fled." Peter denied him 3X (Mr. 14:66-72)
@highwind8124 Re. Joseph. and the Flav. Test. I wouldn't call it contaminated evidence, most scholars have ID'd the parts that were added in, even if you remove those parts you have cor. test. Furthermore, Joseph. also speaks about John the Baptist and James, the brother of Christ. Those passages are not disputed. Even the most liberal of scholars who have no agendas to beleive the bible will at the very least conclude Jesus was a historical person and the basic storyline of the Bible.
Okay, prove how "most scholars" have done that. Have fun.
I just disputed those passages, so you're wrong there.
Conservative secular scholars like Ehrman generously give Christians their best case scenario. It's why by no stretch of the imagination could he be called liberal. Truth be told, if any skepticism is applied, we would find just cause to doubt. That's why Ehrman can't put forth a statement Christ existed an essay online to back it.
You're relying on contaminated evidence. That's the best case you've got. The only secular mention of Jesus within the first century is an admitted forgery. You've never gotten a statement from any secular historian which says: "There is no chance that Jesus did not exist."
You've got nothing. You lack so much character that you have no shame submitting contaminated evidence. You don't even warn people. You just throw it out there knowingly hoping people don't know because you're a liar.
@highwind8124 You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Scholars have ID's the parts of the Test. Flav. that were "contaminated" and weeded them out. Even if you don't accept the Test. Flav. you still have accounts of James, the brother of Christ, and John the Baptist. That is not disputed. James, one of the original disciples of Christ died back in Acts 12, Joseph. even attests to this. I would like to get back to the CDM though because we're not done w/ that.
@highwind8124 If you go with the basic storyline you have the disciples forsaking Christ before the beating and crucifuxion. From the time they forsook him to the time he died things only got worse, meaning they had no reason to believe Jesus' fate wouldn't be their own if they acknowledged being his followers, but as the story continues they become bold proclaimers of the message of Christ.
@highwind8124 As I said before, for CDM to take place they would have to be wishful and deluded. I want you to tell me how a bunch of half-hearted followers of christ (even before he was lead away) who forsook him once he was captured, what wishful deluded thoughts did they have that would make them become bold and fearless? If you think CDM took place, tell me how they were wishfully deluded? Give me reasons.
Prove there were half-hearted followers of Christ before he was captured. Hell, prove he was captured. Do you realize how many variables there are that you haven't eliminated? You haven't eliminated the possibility of CDM. You just claim matter of factly that there were early martyrs who were tortured and refused to recant, who embraced execution. You've done NOTHING to prove it, or prove anything.
I don't even think there were disciples, let alone disciples with CDM. Prove it first.
@highwind8124 And keep in mind, it's not like they stuck around and tried to pick the pieces up fill the holes as CDM would say. They forsook him. They didn't stick around. Even if you just believe it's a story, there is no way you can possibly conclude CDM unless you're a moron, there is just no way. I'm not going to let you get off it, I'm not going to let you mention it in passing. I wrote this to MTH and he didn't even answer me yet.
Actually, while historians generally agree that there was a historical Jesus (which I've seen no secular historian has laid out a convincing case for), NONE will say that it is 100% certain that he did exist.
In fact, every piece of evidence on Jesus which can be brought out is highly dubious.
Try getting Bart Ehrman to explain how he knows Jesus existed. Try getting him to post a YouTube video or web page that lays out his reasons for believing it. Let me know how it goes.
"Do we have an accurate copy of the original New Testament documents."
No, you don't. Never mind the Jesus Seminar people. You simply don't have the Aramaic originals (which Christians only assume existed, but there is no proof of).
The only documents we have are in Greek.
Make sure to go to any book store and buy Bart Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted" and "Misquoting Jesus", or just YouTube search him. Beats Turek's lies.
Turek believes that the 4 books per written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, so the authors are eyewitnesses, he says historical revisionists would not be able to change the books because the eyewitnesses where alive to correct them.
So why did the four eyewitnesses not correct themselves, they don't agree with each other on crucial points.
Maybe the books where historically correct and some religious revisionists falsified them, are they more honest then historical revisionists ?
Hey nutjob, are you defining accurate original copy, as the original Greek one? in which Jesus cranks out the parables in Greek and not in Aramaic?, hello how is that accurate?
Yeah you are right. Sorry I got the aramaic mixed up with the latin. He didnt speak latin---I remembered that He spoke three languages though. i just coulnt remember the third one. Thanks for the correction, seriously. I agree with but He was quoted as speaking hebrew, greek, and aramaic all thru his life. which makes sense He's Jewish.
Pure absurdity, he spoke only Aramaic, no theologian will claim he spoke anything but, the only evidence he spoke Greek, is the Greek Bible, you are an imbecile JesusFanatic
okay first off--noone in The bible says that He spoke three languages. You are right bout that but its common knowledge that is accepted by most scholars that He spoke Hebrew(He was jewish after all), Aramaic, and Greek because those were the main languages around His time and culture. Thats why when Pontious Pilate let him get hung he had a sign posted in thre languages saying:this is the king of the jews. those were hebrew, aramaic, and greek.
Did you think this or just google cut and paste it? Hello Spanish is around me, do I speak it? no, so claiming Jesus spoke Greek is pure unsubstantiated conjecture.
How does this guy know what God can say and do? And is he talking about the Jesus who spoke Aramaic while alive, and parables in Greek after he died? LOL
Jesus did not in fact fulfill the Jewish messianic prophecies. That's why the Jews don't accept him as the messiah.
Christians tried to counter this by going back and finding random verses in the Old Testament that seemed to describe things Jesus did, but a lot of these were not actually prophecies (they came from Psalms, for example) or they were non-messianic prophecies about old kings of Israel and other figures.
Okay first off Jesus fulfilled over 300 messianic prophecies that were very specific (like where and when He'd be born, how He would die, where He'd be buried, What His name would be, who would bore Him, and manye more). There are jews that accept HIM as messiah once they examined the scriptures for themselves called messianic jews. You should try talkin to them before you open your mouth. Also the prophecies were two-fold, if you know what that means.
The Jews have a canonical list of messianic prophecies, and Jesus did not fulfill them.
Christians went back and found several Old Testament verses that seemed to resemble things in Jesus' career, and retroactively declared these to be messianic prophecies that he fulfilled. They had never been considered that why before.
I've known about a dozen 'messianic Jews,' and every single one of them started as Christians befire discovering they had a Jewish great-grandmother of something.
okay you obviously do not know anything about biblical prophecy. The prophecies in the old test. were two fold meaning that yeah they were talking about something bout to happen in their time but the prophets also had GOD's larger picture in mind--The messiah. The prophecies were refferring to both. Also real messianic jews are actual jewish ppl that searched the scriptures themselves and found Jesus to be the messiah. All of jesus' followers were actual jews. There no christians.
No quite the contrary, I know plenty about prophecy. Not one prophecy was infering a heavenly king, a messiah rising to the clouds, the Hebrews were expecting an earthly ruler, one who would reestablish the promised land and kingdom. The wicked were going to get their due punishment, sadly Proverbs, Psalms and the other Pentateuch garbage was mistaken. Good luck with your delusion
Well, obviously you dont know anything about biblical prophecy but refuse to argue with you because its pointless. i have better things to do with my life--like live it. So my suggestion to you is to grow up, get a life, and seek the Truth for yourself and i wil pray for you. The jews were expecting an earthly messiah but they were mistaken bout when He would do all that. Orthodox jews refuse to ackknowledge the prophecies of the messiah having to suffer first for mankind-like isaiah 53.
In other words the biblical prophecy understood only by you, is the correct interpretation, and according to you, the Hebrews were incorrect, yet Christianity is the stolen religion of the Hebrews, how's that work?
How dare Frank Turek use the title of "doctor." He got his "doctorate" in apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. So instead of studying a subject to learn something, he learned to argue in a completely biased setting.
Nice biased comment. I have a question. If "Dr." Turek's education is only from the inadequate SES, why don't you go ahead and discredit his weak argument? It doesn't really matter where he got his degree, but what he's saying. Listen to what he's talking about
There's no point discreditting his weak argument. Anyone who agrees with him will continue agreeing with him simply because of their belief system. I did listen, and the man is an absolute fool.
My point is: What kind of man spends their time learning to argue in a church when they could be getting a degree that would allow them to actually contribrute to society? Most people who have doctorates do something useful with their time. :P
He's talking a load of crap. I don't care about his title for education, he's completely and conveniently leaving out that the gospels contradict each other as does the old testament. More brain washing. What ever rocks your boat tho!
Correct brock138 he studied the unknowable. How's that for a cushy set-up. Why would a universe creator ever need an apologist? Pretty vile and absurd stuff, LOL.
Okay I aint gonna argue with you because like a said earlier I have better things to do with my life. I just wanted to say that evolutionists are biased as well---well more so. Theres ton of evidence---not to mention animals--that defy evolution but the evolutionists wouldn't dare mention that now would they? They only talk bout evidence that "supports" their theory...sounds pretty biased to me.
Think of what animal defies evolution and run a google search for "evolution of {insert animal name here}". If it doesn't work for any animal, let me know which one(s). I'm no biologist, so I might not know how it evolved, but I would certainly like to know about the animal.
Fun fact - There is no "missing link"... we've got a complete chain of fossil records. =)
Yes, people who believe in science are biased; but that's because we understand the method. You should study it a little. =)
the woodpecker for one and the australian incubater for another defy evolution. Okay thats just to end this idiotic debate that is not worth my time. Also you are right bout there not being a missing link---theres a missing chain! Evolution has no evidence to back it up that hasn't been proven false or fabricated. Show me one real transition fossil! Evolution is simply religion masquerading around as "science" .
I fail to see how either of those defy evolution.
Woodpecker - birds have been picking bugs out of trees forever. Being able to chip wood faster to get to the bugs means they can eat and survive and reproduce and pass on their genes.
Incubator bird - So what? Birds got lazy and smart. It's beneficial because it's nest is well hidden and the parents don't have to stay at the nest.
If evolution is simply a religion, why do all scientists believe it? Must be the right "religion."
He would make a great point here if the Gospels actually read like eye witness accounts. The Gospels are not narratives, they are four versions of supposedly similar events. Not once in the actual text of the Gospel does the author claim to be an apostle. While it is titled as such, there is no evidence to support that the author was actually that apostle. Furthermore, the authors are somehow able to document things that happened when they were not present.
Now, there are arguments that God inspired the writing of these documents. I believe this argument is flawed because it asserts that faith is the underlying principle that causes people to take the Gospels seriously. The more likely explanation is that Jesus existed and did great things for impoverished people. He was killed and stories of his life and death were passed down. These were compiled and the authors of each individual Gospel put their spin on the stories.
Why what benefit would that serve them cuz they already had it good. I mean once they started preachin The Truth they were brutally persecuted. You cant deny that. I aint havin a go at you cuz you are spoutin ignorance.You must be a lil whiteboy so i understand lol. Also Mathew was an apostle. So was John. Mark was peters writer.
Furthermore, certain Gospels exist that are not included in the Bible. These are considered the "Gnostic" Gospels. The Greek historian Irenaeus is credited as an early editor of what would become the Catholic Bible (it is this version of the Bible that the Protestant versions are based on, not the assorted collection of Greek manuscripts). Irenaeus looked through all the Gospels (there were more than four) and picked those of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John to be part of Catholic Canon.
The reality is that the Bible was not written fully formed and is not the word of God. It is a collection of translated and edited manuscripts alleging superpowers to a little-known Jewish martyr. I say little known because while there are historians that mention Jesus outside the Bible, there are not nearly as many who document him as other historical figures of that time and place, suggesting that Jesus was just a man, nothing more. While a few suggest he was God, they don't show any proof.
I appreciate you're civil tone, as opposed to many other hostile individuals who just like to whip ppl into a frenzy.
Having said that, I think you're a little off.
Given his nature,it would be more improbable, and therefore more surprising,if he would have been documented.
There is no "proof" within the historical realm to show that the supernatural manifested itself.And for that matter,there can be no materialistic/methodological one either.
Aye, it is a matter of trust. However, many people think trust, especially in such matters, should be earned and not given freely: this is where history and probability come into play. With such little evidence, and such a need for trust, strong convictions have very little to stand upon, other than themselves, that is. If an objective reading of the data in question doesn't reliably point the reader to the direction of faith, then that shows a flaw within the material.
Don't forget to add that no one even knows what the supernatural is or can manifest itself as without knowing what it is. Are you in a frenzy yet? LOL....
There is several testimonies about Jesus outside the Bible. Scripture is God Inspired . Jesus fulfilled 300 Plus phrocies 7 more than 500 people saw the risen Christ.
Mysticism, the stupidness disease, the only terminal affliction of the human mind.
What would one use for the word "consciousness," before one discovered it within himself, yet witnessed it in others, (2700 yrs. ago, before there was a word for it.) Centralized "God"vernance was popularized.
Cultures automatically became a deadly comfort zone, with individuals dedicated to collectives upon pains of death, preventing discontent.
So, live emo; die like a kite. Live rationally; live.
He asks "Do we have an accurate copy of the original New Testament documents?" He then mentions people and groups which deny this but the answer is YES!
lol Paul was obviously writing to someone not widely known but "most excellent" would suggest he might have been a Roman official or had high position, or he could have been his publisher to which a dedication like this was common. There were 12 before Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide so neither is wrong as you suggest.
And you said"lol Paul was obviously writing to someone not widely known but "most excellent" would suggest he might have been a Roman official or had high position, or he could have been his publisher to which a dedication like this was common. There were 12 before Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide so neither is wrong as you suggest."
And what's your point about Paul writing to Corinth? 1 Cor 15:5, the ref you're referring to, is Paul summarizing what he previously told the Corinthians and he says "The twelve" (Greek-Dodeka) because that refers to the group of apostles, even though Judas was obviously no longer with them. The eleven remaining apostles are ref. in Mt 28:16, Mk.16:14, Lk.24:9,33, Ac.1:26. What's the problem?
Read your own comment. You said "lol Paul was obviously writing to someone not widely known but "most excellent" would suggest he might have been a Roman official or had high position, or he could have been his publisher to which a dedication like this was common."
Please tell me where Paul said this. You can't see the difference between 12 and 11? Paul said the first person Jesus appeared to was Cephas, the Gospels all say it was Mary. Are you now going to tell me that Cephas is Mary?
It obviously wasn't Paul, sorry. I'm talking about Luke. In Luke 1:3 Luke says that he wrote this letter to "you, most excellent Theophilus and in v.4 so Theophilus "may know the certainty of the things [he] was taught."
I explained "the Twelve" to you. I Cor 15:5 DOES NOT give a chronology of all His appearances! I explained there are 11 physical appearances and 1 Cor 15:5 summarizes only 5 of them assuming the appearance to Paul was the one on the road to Damascus.
You said "I Cor 15:5 DOES NOT give a chronology of all His appearances!" It doesn't? What do the words "first","then" and "after that" and "last of all" mean? Why are they there if not to give a chronological order to the text?
Are you serious? It doesn't list all eleven (it just highlights 5 of them) but it is in order. What's the problem? Paul was summarizing what was taught to the Corinthians and it's not expected that he would detail EVERYTHING they were taught.
Yes I have been very serious and sincere in every comment I have made. It has become plain to me that you have not been. You just respond with what ever thought pops up in your head, knowing full well that you really have no idea what I am talking about. It is Christians like you that have caused me to leave the faith. I ask a sincere question and your response is-LOL,LOL. "Professing themselves wise they became fools......."
Sorry if I have offended you. Please answer my question, what is wrong with Paul summarizing what was taught? It makes complete logical sense that he would not mention all 11 appearances and in fact, it's surprising that he even mentions the five as his appearances are not nearly as important as the core doctrines he mentioned previously. I've never heard of anyone having a problem with this. Are you suggesting the other appearances never happened?
BigOne, I do not doubt your sincerity, but (if I may intrude here) I do not follow your logic.
You asked if there will be a 12th post-res appearance. That is hardly a challenge to the Christian faith. So Todd just wrote "lol" and "YES" cause we are awaiting Christ's return.
Also, why do you expect Paul to have made a comprehensive list of all of Christ's post-res appearances, or to have even known about all of them to begin with?
I do not see anyone mocking you or dodging the questions...
@Bigone5555J 1 Cor 15:3-8 is an oral tradition or creed that dates back to the time of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. This can be demonstrated by textual scholarship. Please visit my channel and watch the video on the creed in 1 cor 15, even skeptical scholars date it to within 2 years of the actual events.
The Gospel of Luke contradicts Acts. Both books contradict Paul's statements. Theophilus was not born until 115 CE and he became the Bishop of Antioch in 168 CE. This guy is full of it. Do your own research.
NOT TRUE... What do you think are contradictions?
I love how you skeptics come out of the woodwork and think you can prove the Bible is wrong... The bible has stood the test of time for 2000 years and here you come... Do a little research before you make a blanket statement like this, ok?
BTW, I know Theophilus personally and I'll ask him when he was born... Or do you think there might be more than one???
You serious? Basically, the Acts reference is speaking about one of His other post-resurrection appearances (you know Jesus appeared after the resurrection, right? 11 separate times!) and there were "11" after Judas died. Who told you these were contradictions? Why don't you but a book on the alleged discrepancies in the Bible and do this yourself? And have you ever considered that Luke might be writing to a different Theophilus, not the Bishop of Antioch?
'Bart Ehrman is wrong' There hasnt been ONE refutation of misqouting Jesus.
shawndimery 5 months ago
Turek still has shit in his pants from when he got destroyed by Hitchens.
shawndimery 5 months ago
This is based on complete nonsense. The New Testament scriptures on which his whole argument is predicated were selected by men because they conformed to a popular canon. Other gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, the Sophia of Jesus, were rejected because they did not conform to this canon. Some of the rejected gospels were declared to be heresy. The New Testament was clearly crafted by early churchmen, not god.
Douglaslid 6 months ago
@Douglaslid actually the other books that didn't make it into the canon had various historical innacuracies about the culture and such. The names they used and such. Other reasons were the time of writing, some were written more than 2 generations after Christ, which is reaching the length of time where fabrication can start to creep in.
The 4 gospels were all written withing 1 generation which means it's too early for fabrications to emerge. It wasn't "crafted" like you think.
MeTolerateYou 5 months ago
@MeTolerateYou There are very real differences between the canon of the synoptic gospels and those that were excluded. Papyri of the Gospel of Thomas for example have been dated earlier than any of the synoptic gospels including Mark and Luke. In my opinion the NT gospels were primarily selected in order to refute the Gnostic and Arian traditions in favour of the Roman Church with its emphasis on the Trinitarian creed, male supremacy and the need for priests to intercede between man and god..
Douglaslid 5 months ago
Why the fk he has to shout?
JennaSmith987 8 months ago
@JennaSmith987 its cause the louder you talk the more right you are..everyone knows that ;)
skepticalsight 8 months ago
Also, someone who calls himself 'Supreme American' judging others as narcissistic is a little rich... Good hustle :)
rrippp 8 months ago
@SupremeAmerican I was raised a Catholic, so I know a fair bit, and have been immersed in the bible since birth... I don't deny my narcissism, so 'calling' me one does not bother me... My spirituality is the level of perspective I have on my narcissism, which I think is good. I like spirituality informed by direct experience, and evidence, of which there is plenty. Reciting scripture in with a lot of conviction and emotion might carry a lot of charge and resonance, but it does not go deep.
rrippp 8 months ago
crummy logic... it is enclosed in its own terms (which are taking a lot for granted, and leaps of unproven stages in a process of reason) rather than anything remotely objective... I have a spirituality of my own, inspired my my contact with God, rather than some dumbass take on ancient, flawed books.
rrippp 8 months ago
@rrippp Its quite obvious from your comment you don't know the facts of what Christianity is, nor have an accurate account about its literature. If you're going to criticize something, it would serve you better to actually know what it is you're criticizing. If not, you just look like a foolish narcissist. - Sincerely, an educated, non-religious guy.
SupremeAmerican 8 months ago
@rrippp PS: You mad?
SupremeAmerican 8 months ago
FAKE AND GAY
ThePurpleAwesomness 10 months ago
I'm always wary of people who have to yell and be overly animated when they present something. feels too much like an infomercial to me.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@BillKiernan I think you mean Animated! Just saw him give a lecture and 2.5hrs flew so fast. He is a great speaker...
superbill2 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shuzanne 2 years ago
He didn't. God is timeless, ergo He always is.
There, I answered your question.
philWynk 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shuzanne 1 year ago
Shuzanne, in all honesty and humility, if any of us could have answered that, we'd be all knowing for to know this would mean to know immeasurably more than we already know.
You ask a great question, but with our limited understanding of already natural issues and topics, I personally believe that we would not be able to fathom such an awesome piece of information as "to understand God".
Qrazii 1 year ago
@Qrazii
thanks
Shuzanne 1 year ago
@Shuzanne you are welcome!
Qrazii 1 year ago
(continued)...In itself, if there is evidence to prove a Creator, then He must be God indeed. Meaning, if God is God, then He cannot be a limited God but an ominiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent person who cannot be explained by mere human levels of intellect and language.
To say, "understand God" therefore is considered to be an oxymoron in itself.
Qrazii 1 year ago
@Qrazii
God is, by definition, a necessary being. He exists eternally without cause and is dependent upon nothing for his existence.
Notice how many atheists try to say exactly the same thing for the universe itself - that somehow it has always been here (despite the fact that modern science points towards all space, time, matter and energy being only 13.5 bil years old from the Big Bang).
So, something has to be the unmoved mover, and the universe is a crummy candidate. It is contingent.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon - indeed! I am not comfortable with the term "necessary being" and I do get you on the other pieces which I do agree.
Qrazii 1 year ago
Thats a stupid question: God is eternal so He didnt "come to be" because He has always been
Ambassador4Christ100 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shuzanne 2 years ago
He's making a testimonial for a neo-tech, a secret society.
crsytanas 2 years ago
@crsytanas i am not sure if to laugh or refute.
Qrazii 1 year ago
Comment removed
highwind8126 2 years ago
Also, the Gospels put the story in the time frame of roughly 30 A.D. So whether the Temple is still standing or not whenever they wrote it is totally irrelevant, meaning Turek has no point.
So there you have it - a bunch of dishonest smoke and mirrors by a person with as much integrity as a crooked used car salesman. But I can't blame the atheist. His audience are such rubes. There's good money in books.
highwind8124 2 years ago
Notice how Turek does nothing to prove that whatever creed he's talking about was around in 30 A.D.? I guess he felt like skipping that.
He also does nothing to prove that Luke wrote the book of Luke. He neglects to tell you that this was actually the best guess the early church could come up. That's right - a guess. They didn't know. Gee, I wonder why?
highwind8124 2 years ago
"We know Paul was killed by Emperor Nero..."
How? Do explain. If he's not lying, explain how he KNOWS.
Also, Josephus' work is "contaminated evidence" and would be dismissed in any court of law since Christians had their hands on it and interpolated/forged the Testimonium Flavianum. In other words, he doesn't know if Josephus wrote that.
Check out ProfMTH's "DID the Disciples Die For a Lie?" series on YouTube to see clear evidence that the early church made stuff up about martyrdom.
highwind8124 2 years ago
@highwind8124 Just watched the vid you mentioned. The biggest argument it gives, that is, the one is spends most time on is the Cog. Dis. Management. A reading of the Gospels reveals many of the disciples were fearful once the Passion began and fled as they didn't want to be killed. Others were doubtful after the resurrection. In short, they went from fearful and doubting to courageous and faithful, but they were anything but deluded men with wishful thoughts, a must for CDM to take place.
Brian685 2 years ago
Then watch it again, because you completely missed the parts about the early church proven to have made up stories about how apostles died, church leaders claiming hugely contradictory accounts.
highwind8126 2 years ago
"In short, they went from fearful and doubting to courageous"
Prove it.
highwind8126 2 years ago
@highwind8126 @highwind8126 James died in Acts 12, John was tortured and exiled to the island of Patmos in Rev 1. Luke is a contemp. who corroborated what the eyewitnesses said, even if you discount the Test. Flav. We also have evidence from Joseph. in regards to John the Baptist and persecution of XNs. So what? you say? If they were being martyred for their faith, what makes you think the original disciples werent martyred for their faith as well?
Brian685 2 years ago
You're quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. You haven't proven that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke. I obviously discount the Test. Flav.
You haven't provided a shred of proof. All you've cited is the Bible and contaminated evidence.
highwind8124 2 years ago
@highwind8124 Sure I'm quoting the Bible - what's wrong with that? It contains eyewitness and corrobrative testimony. MTH didn't prove anything in his video, CDM is not an argument he can use.
Brian685 2 years ago
"what's wrong with that?"
Look up circular reasoning.
Prove it was written by eyewitnesses.
He pointed out that the early church lied about martyrdom. They made stuff up. Watch it again if you have to. CDM was briefly discussed, not they key point, and you haven't disproved that possibility.
highwind8124 2 years ago
@highwind8124 It's not circ. reas. to look into a historical document for proof. I'm not treating the Bible as a book, but a historical document, at least the NT since that's what we're speaking about for right now. The NT has eyewitness details. The proof you need is found by simply reading and seeing for yourself.
Brian685 2 years ago
"It's not circ. reas. to look into a historical document for proof."
You haven't proven the Bible is a historical document rather than a religious extent, or to what extent is it historical and to what extent religious. You're just slapping the label on according to your whims.
"The NT has eyewitness details."
Prove it.
"The proof you need is found by simply reading and seeing for yourself."
I have. Now feel free to point out a shred of proof from it.
highwind8124 2 years ago
@highwind8124 IDT he pointed out much of anything to be honest. Yes CMD was briefly discussed, but by simply reading the story and taking it at face value, even if you disagree with the historicity of it, just by taking it at face value only a moron would conclude it was CMD based on the reasons I gave, specifically they forsook Christ before the crucifixion and had no reason to believe their fate would be anything less than Christ's if they continued to associate w/ him WIW Peter denied him X3.
Brian685 2 years ago
"IDT he pointed out much of anything to be honest."
Your using the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument. That video series proves we have no proof of any of any eyewitness martyrs. Your mere thinking that nothing was pointed out either shows you're willfully not paying attention or lying.
highwind8124 2 years ago
"specifically they forsook Christ before the crucifixion"
Prove it.
"and had no reason to believe their fate would be anything less than Christ's"
Except that according to the Bible, Jesus already resurrected at least two people and claimed to his disciples he would resurrect as well. Duh.
"Peter denied him X3."
Prove it.
highwind8124 2 years ago
@highwind8124 You keep asking me to prove it, that's fine, but what would consittute proof for you? The proof is in the reading of the storyline. Even if you just accept it as the story for the sake of argument and so I can make my illustration, you cannot deny unless you are willfully ignorant that the disciples forsook Christ before the cruc. because just reading the text will leave you no other options. Mk. 14:15 "they all left him and fled." Peter denied him 3X (Mr. 14:66-72)
Brian685 2 years ago
@highwind8124 Re. Joseph. and the Flav. Test. I wouldn't call it contaminated evidence, most scholars have ID'd the parts that were added in, even if you remove those parts you have cor. test. Furthermore, Joseph. also speaks about John the Baptist and James, the brother of Christ. Those passages are not disputed. Even the most liberal of scholars who have no agendas to beleive the bible will at the very least conclude Jesus was a historical person and the basic storyline of the Bible.
Brian685 2 years ago
I don't care what you would call it. It is.
Okay, prove how "most scholars" have done that. Have fun.
I just disputed those passages, so you're wrong there.
Conservative secular scholars like Ehrman generously give Christians their best case scenario. It's why by no stretch of the imagination could he be called liberal. Truth be told, if any skepticism is applied, we would find just cause to doubt. That's why Ehrman can't put forth a statement Christ existed an essay online to back it.
highwind8124 2 years ago
"Okay, prove how "most scholars" have done that. Have fun."
Are you saying that you don't know how scholars assess history at all, or that you do?
Birdieupon 2 years ago
You're relying on contaminated evidence. That's the best case you've got. The only secular mention of Jesus within the first century is an admitted forgery. You've never gotten a statement from any secular historian which says: "There is no chance that Jesus did not exist."
You've got nothing. You lack so much character that you have no shame submitting contaminated evidence. You don't even warn people. You just throw it out there knowingly hoping people don't know because you're a liar.
highwind8124 2 years ago
@highwind8124 You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Scholars have ID's the parts of the Test. Flav. that were "contaminated" and weeded them out. Even if you don't accept the Test. Flav. you still have accounts of James, the brother of Christ, and John the Baptist. That is not disputed. James, one of the original disciples of Christ died back in Acts 12, Joseph. even attests to this. I would like to get back to the CDM though because we're not done w/ that.
Brian685 2 years ago
@highwind8124 If you go with the basic storyline you have the disciples forsaking Christ before the beating and crucifuxion. From the time they forsook him to the time he died things only got worse, meaning they had no reason to believe Jesus' fate wouldn't be their own if they acknowledged being his followers, but as the story continues they become bold proclaimers of the message of Christ.
Brian685 2 years ago
@highwind8124 As I said before, for CDM to take place they would have to be wishful and deluded. I want you to tell me how a bunch of half-hearted followers of christ (even before he was lead away) who forsook him once he was captured, what wishful deluded thoughts did they have that would make them become bold and fearless? If you think CDM took place, tell me how they were wishfully deluded? Give me reasons.
Brian685 2 years ago
Prove there were half-hearted followers of Christ before he was captured. Hell, prove he was captured. Do you realize how many variables there are that you haven't eliminated? You haven't eliminated the possibility of CDM. You just claim matter of factly that there were early martyrs who were tortured and refused to recant, who embraced execution. You've done NOTHING to prove it, or prove anything.
I don't even think there were disciples, let alone disciples with CDM. Prove it first.
highwind8124 2 years ago
@highwind8124 And keep in mind, it's not like they stuck around and tried to pick the pieces up fill the holes as CDM would say. They forsook him. They didn't stick around. Even if you just believe it's a story, there is no way you can possibly conclude CDM unless you're a moron, there is just no way. I'm not going to let you get off it, I'm not going to let you mention it in passing. I wrote this to MTH and he didn't even answer me yet.
Brian685 2 years ago
Actually, while historians generally agree that there was a historical Jesus (which I've seen no secular historian has laid out a convincing case for), NONE will say that it is 100% certain that he did exist.
In fact, every piece of evidence on Jesus which can be brought out is highly dubious.
Try getting Bart Ehrman to explain how he knows Jesus existed. Try getting him to post a YouTube video or web page that lays out his reasons for believing it. Let me know how it goes.
highwind8124 2 years ago
"Do we have an accurate copy of the original New Testament documents."
No, you don't. Never mind the Jesus Seminar people. You simply don't have the Aramaic originals (which Christians only assume existed, but there is no proof of).
The only documents we have are in Greek.
Make sure to go to any book store and buy Bart Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted" and "Misquoting Jesus", or just YouTube search him. Beats Turek's lies.
highwind8124 2 years ago
Well, by his logic, if we can prove the Old Testament false, we can prove the New testament false too.
Well, we did prove major tenets of the Old Testament wrong. So, voila!!
New testament is wrong.
encarta007 2 years ago
Turek believes that the 4 books per written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, so the authors are eyewitnesses, he says historical revisionists would not be able to change the books because the eyewitnesses where alive to correct them.
So why did the four eyewitnesses not correct themselves, they don't agree with each other on crucial points.
Maybe the books where historically correct and some religious revisionists falsified them, are they more honest then historical revisionists ?
saintpine 2 years ago
Comment removed
saintpine 2 years ago
more and more disease riddled mysicisms! Holy Crap!
Xandersclass 2 years ago
man made bullshit.........hate filled / mind control enslavement. "religion"
pick4guy 2 years ago
Hey nutjob, are you defining accurate original copy, as the original Greek one? in which Jesus cranks out the parables in Greek and not in Aramaic?, hello how is that accurate?
elvismilk 2 years ago
Jesus spoke in three languages: Hebrew, GREEK, and latin but mainly hebrew since He was Jewish.
TheJesusFanatic100 2 years ago
Jesus spoke Aramaic. He is quoted as speaking his last words on the cross in Aramaic.
belinskii 2 years ago
Yeah you are right. Sorry I got the aramaic mixed up with the latin. He didnt speak latin---I remembered that He spoke three languages though. i just coulnt remember the third one. Thanks for the correction, seriously. I agree with but He was quoted as speaking hebrew, greek, and aramaic all thru his life. which makes sense He's Jewish.
TheJesusFanatic100 2 years ago
Where does it say Jesus spoke three languages? Wouldn't a god thing speak every language? You are an idiot?
elvismilk 2 years ago
Pure absurdity, he spoke only Aramaic, no theologian will claim he spoke anything but, the only evidence he spoke Greek, is the Greek Bible, you are an imbecile JesusFanatic
elvismilk 2 years ago
okay first off--noone in The bible says that He spoke three languages. You are right bout that but its common knowledge that is accepted by most scholars that He spoke Hebrew(He was jewish after all), Aramaic, and Greek because those were the main languages around His time and culture. Thats why when Pontious Pilate let him get hung he had a sign posted in thre languages saying:this is the king of the jews. those were hebrew, aramaic, and greek.
TheJesusFanatic100 2 years ago
Did you think this or just google cut and paste it? Hello Spanish is around me, do I speak it? no, so claiming Jesus spoke Greek is pure unsubstantiated conjecture.
elvismilk 2 years ago
Jesus fulfilled 300 plus phrophecies concerning Himself & more than 500 people saw the risen Christ!
bnegyjr56 2 years ago
How does this guy know what God can say and do? And is he talking about the Jesus who spoke Aramaic while alive, and parables in Greek after he died? LOL
elvismilk 2 years ago
Jesus did not in fact fulfill the Jewish messianic prophecies. That's why the Jews don't accept him as the messiah.
Christians tried to counter this by going back and finding random verses in the Old Testament that seemed to describe things Jesus did, but a lot of these were not actually prophecies (they came from Psalms, for example) or they were non-messianic prophecies about old kings of Israel and other figures.
belinskii 2 years ago
Okay first off Jesus fulfilled over 300 messianic prophecies that were very specific (like where and when He'd be born, how He would die, where He'd be buried, What His name would be, who would bore Him, and manye more). There are jews that accept HIM as messiah once they examined the scriptures for themselves called messianic jews. You should try talkin to them before you open your mouth. Also the prophecies were two-fold, if you know what that means.
TheJesusFanatic100 2 years ago
The Jews have a canonical list of messianic prophecies, and Jesus did not fulfill them.
Christians went back and found several Old Testament verses that seemed to resemble things in Jesus' career, and retroactively declared these to be messianic prophecies that he fulfilled. They had never been considered that why before.
I've known about a dozen 'messianic Jews,' and every single one of them started as Christians befire discovering they had a Jewish great-grandmother of something.
belinskii 2 years ago
okay you obviously do not know anything about biblical prophecy. The prophecies in the old test. were two fold meaning that yeah they were talking about something bout to happen in their time but the prophets also had GOD's larger picture in mind--The messiah. The prophecies were refferring to both. Also real messianic jews are actual jewish ppl that searched the scriptures themselves and found Jesus to be the messiah. All of jesus' followers were actual jews. There no christians.
TheJesusFanatic100 2 years ago
No quite the contrary, I know plenty about prophecy. Not one prophecy was infering a heavenly king, a messiah rising to the clouds, the Hebrews were expecting an earthly ruler, one who would reestablish the promised land and kingdom. The wicked were going to get their due punishment, sadly Proverbs, Psalms and the other Pentateuch garbage was mistaken. Good luck with your delusion
elvismilk 2 years ago
Well, obviously you dont know anything about biblical prophecy but refuse to argue with you because its pointless. i have better things to do with my life--like live it. So my suggestion to you is to grow up, get a life, and seek the Truth for yourself and i wil pray for you. The jews were expecting an earthly messiah but they were mistaken bout when He would do all that. Orthodox jews refuse to ackknowledge the prophecies of the messiah having to suffer first for mankind-like isaiah 53.
TheJesusFanatic100 2 years ago
In other words the biblical prophecy understood only by you, is the correct interpretation, and according to you, the Hebrews were incorrect, yet Christianity is the stolen religion of the Hebrews, how's that work?
elvismilk 2 years ago
The story had to be written, tweeked, edited and handed down in this manner, otherwise you'd be screwed.
elvismilk 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
How dare Frank Turek use the title of "doctor." He got his "doctorate" in apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. So instead of studying a subject to learn something, he learned to argue in a completely biased setting.
brock138 3 years ago
Nice biased comment. I have a question. If "Dr." Turek's education is only from the inadequate SES, why don't you go ahead and discredit his weak argument? It doesn't really matter where he got his degree, but what he's saying. Listen to what he's talking about
drumbum326 2 years ago
There's no point discreditting his weak argument. Anyone who agrees with him will continue agreeing with him simply because of their belief system. I did listen, and the man is an absolute fool.
My point is: What kind of man spends their time learning to argue in a church when they could be getting a degree that would allow them to actually contribrute to society? Most people who have doctorates do something useful with their time. :P
brock138 2 years ago
He's talking a load of crap. I don't care about his title for education, he's completely and conveniently leaving out that the gospels contradict each other as does the old testament. More brain washing. What ever rocks your boat tho!
Justwonderwhy2 2 years ago
Correct brock138 he studied the unknowable. How's that for a cushy set-up. Why would a universe creator ever need an apologist? Pretty vile and absurd stuff, LOL.
elvismilk 2 years ago
Okay I aint gonna argue with you because like a said earlier I have better things to do with my life. I just wanted to say that evolutionists are biased as well---well more so. Theres ton of evidence---not to mention animals--that defy evolution but the evolutionists wouldn't dare mention that now would they? They only talk bout evidence that "supports" their theory...sounds pretty biased to me.
TheJesusFanatic100 2 years ago
I want the right to decide what's canonical also, that's only fair.
elvismilk 2 years ago
Think of what animal defies evolution and run a google search for "evolution of {insert animal name here}". If it doesn't work for any animal, let me know which one(s). I'm no biologist, so I might not know how it evolved, but I would certainly like to know about the animal.
Fun fact - There is no "missing link"... we've got a complete chain of fossil records. =)
Yes, people who believe in science are biased; but that's because we understand the method. You should study it a little. =)
brock138 2 years ago
the woodpecker for one and the australian incubater for another defy evolution. Okay thats just to end this idiotic debate that is not worth my time. Also you are right bout there not being a missing link---theres a missing chain! Evolution has no evidence to back it up that hasn't been proven false or fabricated. Show me one real transition fossil! Evolution is simply religion masquerading around as "science" .
TheJesusFanatic100 2 years ago
I fail to see how either of those defy evolution.
Woodpecker - birds have been picking bugs out of trees forever. Being able to chip wood faster to get to the bugs means they can eat and survive and reproduce and pass on their genes.
Incubator bird - So what? Birds got lazy and smart. It's beneficial because it's nest is well hidden and the parents don't have to stay at the nest.
If evolution is simply a religion, why do all scientists believe it? Must be the right "religion."
Go get educated.
brock138 2 years ago
He would make a great point here if the Gospels actually read like eye witness accounts. The Gospels are not narratives, they are four versions of supposedly similar events. Not once in the actual text of the Gospel does the author claim to be an apostle. While it is titled as such, there is no evidence to support that the author was actually that apostle. Furthermore, the authors are somehow able to document things that happened when they were not present.
saltyrage 3 years ago
Now, there are arguments that God inspired the writing of these documents. I believe this argument is flawed because it asserts that faith is the underlying principle that causes people to take the Gospels seriously. The more likely explanation is that Jesus existed and did great things for impoverished people. He was killed and stories of his life and death were passed down. These were compiled and the authors of each individual Gospel put their spin on the stories.
saltyrage 3 years ago
Why what benefit would that serve them cuz they already had it good. I mean once they started preachin The Truth they were brutally persecuted. You cant deny that. I aint havin a go at you cuz you are spoutin ignorance.You must be a lil whiteboy so i understand lol. Also Mathew was an apostle. So was John. Mark was peters writer.
116cliquemember 3 years ago
Lil whiteboy? Seriously? What makes you think that?
saltyrage 3 years ago
The gospels!
elvismilk 2 years ago
Furthermore, certain Gospels exist that are not included in the Bible. These are considered the "Gnostic" Gospels. The Greek historian Irenaeus is credited as an early editor of what would become the Catholic Bible (it is this version of the Bible that the Protestant versions are based on, not the assorted collection of Greek manuscripts). Irenaeus looked through all the Gospels (there were more than four) and picked those of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John to be part of Catholic Canon.
saltyrage 3 years ago
The reality is that the Bible was not written fully formed and is not the word of God. It is a collection of translated and edited manuscripts alleging superpowers to a little-known Jewish martyr. I say little known because while there are historians that mention Jesus outside the Bible, there are not nearly as many who document him as other historical figures of that time and place, suggesting that Jesus was just a man, nothing more. While a few suggest he was God, they don't show any proof.
saltyrage 3 years ago
I appreciate you're civil tone, as opposed to many other hostile individuals who just like to whip ppl into a frenzy.
Having said that, I think you're a little off.
Given his nature,it would be more improbable, and therefore more surprising,if he would have been documented.
There is no "proof" within the historical realm to show that the supernatural manifested itself.And for that matter,there can be no materialistic/methodological one either.
We trust the totality of the testiomonies.
regelemihai 3 years ago
Aye, it is a matter of trust. However, many people think trust, especially in such matters, should be earned and not given freely: this is where history and probability come into play. With such little evidence, and such a need for trust, strong convictions have very little to stand upon, other than themselves, that is. If an objective reading of the data in question doesn't reliably point the reader to the direction of faith, then that shows a flaw within the material.
saltyrage 2 years ago
Don't forget to add that no one even knows what the supernatural is or can manifest itself as without knowing what it is. Are you in a frenzy yet? LOL....
elvismilk 2 years ago
Ohh-kay? O_o
regelemihai 2 years ago
There is several testimonies about Jesus outside the Bible. Scripture is God Inspired . Jesus fulfilled 300 Plus phrocies 7 more than 500 people saw the risen Christ.
bnegyjr56 2 years ago
Mysticism, the stupidness disease, the only terminal affliction of the human mind.
What would one use for the word "consciousness," before one discovered it within himself, yet witnessed it in others, (2700 yrs. ago, before there was a word for it.) Centralized "God"vernance was popularized.
Cultures automatically became a deadly comfort zone, with individuals dedicated to collectives upon pains of death, preventing discontent.
So, live emo; die like a kite. Live rationally; live.
Vote Ron Paul
Bestmountjoy 3 years ago
WHAT? QUESTION 1??? the bible was written decades after the supposed escapades of jesus
liber8me 3 years ago
A serious question.The speaker asks the question,do we have the original documents but doesn't answer the question.
FEAROFFEET 4 years ago
He asks "Do we have an accurate copy of the original New Testament documents?" He then mentions people and groups which deny this but the answer is YES!
toddtyszka 4 years ago
Theophilus of Antioch is the only Theophilus known by Church historians. Yes I am very serious. Paul says he appeared to the 12. Is Paul a liar?
Bigone5555J 4 years ago
lol Paul was obviously writing to someone not widely known but "most excellent" would suggest he might have been a Roman official or had high position, or he could have been his publisher to which a dedication like this was common. There were 12 before Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide so neither is wrong as you suggest.
toddtyszka 4 years ago
You don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you should open your Bible and see what it really says. Paul was writting to the Church at Corinth.
Bigone5555J 4 years ago
lol... And?
toddtyszka 4 years ago
And you said"lol Paul was obviously writing to someone not widely known but "most excellent" would suggest he might have been a Roman official or had high position, or he could have been his publisher to which a dedication like this was common. There were 12 before Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide so neither is wrong as you suggest."
Bigone5555J 4 years ago
And what's your point about Paul writing to Corinth? 1 Cor 15:5, the ref you're referring to, is Paul summarizing what he previously told the Corinthians and he says "The twelve" (Greek-Dodeka) because that refers to the group of apostles, even though Judas was obviously no longer with them. The eleven remaining apostles are ref. in Mt 28:16, Mk.16:14, Lk.24:9,33, Ac.1:26. What's the problem?
toddtyszka 4 years ago
Read your own comment. You said "lol Paul was obviously writing to someone not widely known but "most excellent" would suggest he might have been a Roman official or had high position, or he could have been his publisher to which a dedication like this was common."
Please tell me where Paul said this. You can't see the difference between 12 and 11? Paul said the first person Jesus appeared to was Cephas, the Gospels all say it was Mary. Are you now going to tell me that Cephas is Mary?
Bigone5555J 4 years ago
It obviously wasn't Paul, sorry. I'm talking about Luke. In Luke 1:3 Luke says that he wrote this letter to "you, most excellent Theophilus and in v.4 so Theophilus "may know the certainty of the things [he] was taught."
I explained "the Twelve" to you. I Cor 15:5 DOES NOT give a chronology of all His appearances! I explained there are 11 physical appearances and 1 Cor 15:5 summarizes only 5 of them assuming the appearance to Paul was the one on the road to Damascus.
toddtyszka 4 years ago
So we are waiting for the 12th coming?
Bigone5555J 4 years ago
lol, in a sense, YES!
toddtyszka 4 years ago
You said "I Cor 15:5 DOES NOT give a chronology of all His appearances!" It doesn't? What do the words "first","then" and "after that" and "last of all" mean? Why are they there if not to give a chronological order to the text?
Bigone5555J 4 years ago
Are you serious? It doesn't list all eleven (it just highlights 5 of them) but it is in order. What's the problem? Paul was summarizing what was taught to the Corinthians and it's not expected that he would detail EVERYTHING they were taught.
toddtyszka 4 years ago
Yes I have been very serious and sincere in every comment I have made. It has become plain to me that you have not been. You just respond with what ever thought pops up in your head, knowing full well that you really have no idea what I am talking about. It is Christians like you that have caused me to leave the faith. I ask a sincere question and your response is-LOL,LOL. "Professing themselves wise they became fools......."
Bigone5555J 4 years ago
Sorry if I have offended you. Please answer my question, what is wrong with Paul summarizing what was taught? It makes complete logical sense that he would not mention all 11 appearances and in fact, it's surprising that he even mentions the five as his appearances are not nearly as important as the core doctrines he mentioned previously. I've never heard of anyone having a problem with this. Are you suggesting the other appearances never happened?
toddtyszka 4 years ago
BigOne, I do not doubt your sincerity, but (if I may intrude here) I do not follow your logic.
You asked if there will be a 12th post-res appearance. That is hardly a challenge to the Christian faith. So Todd just wrote "lol" and "YES" cause we are awaiting Christ's return.
Also, why do you expect Paul to have made a comprehensive list of all of Christ's post-res appearances, or to have even known about all of them to begin with?
I do not see anyone mocking you or dodging the questions...
mayartay 3 years ago
@Bigone5555J kindly refer to the areyouagoodpersontest website.
Qrazii 1 year ago
@Bigone5555J 1 Cor 15:3-8 is an oral tradition or creed that dates back to the time of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. This can be demonstrated by textual scholarship. Please visit my channel and watch the video on the creed in 1 cor 15, even skeptical scholars date it to within 2 years of the actual events.
LogosApologia 1 year ago
The Gospel of Luke contradicts Acts. Both books contradict Paul's statements. Theophilus was not born until 115 CE and he became the Bishop of Antioch in 168 CE. This guy is full of it. Do your own research.
Bigone5555J 4 years ago
NOT TRUE... What do you think are contradictions?
I love how you skeptics come out of the woodwork and think you can prove the Bible is wrong... The bible has stood the test of time for 2000 years and here you come... Do a little research before you make a blanket statement like this, ok?
BTW, I know Theophilus personally and I'll ask him when he was born... Or do you think there might be more than one???
toddtyszka 4 years ago
Luke says Jesus acsended into heaven the same day he rose from the tomb-Acts says 40 later.
Paul says Jesus appeared to the 12- Luke says to the 11. Theophilus was born in 115 CE. Now who needs to do some research.
Bigone5555J 4 years ago
You serious? Basically, the Acts reference is speaking about one of His other post-resurrection appearances (you know Jesus appeared after the resurrection, right? 11 separate times!) and there were "11" after Judas died. Who told you these were contradictions? Why don't you but a book on the alleged discrepancies in the Bible and do this yourself? And have you ever considered that Luke might be writing to a different Theophilus, not the Bishop of Antioch?
toddtyszka 4 years ago
Why not quote the verse where Luke says this?
Kabane52 4 years ago
That is a very interesting point!
emailjrs 4 years ago
Very informative. Thanks for posting this.
monkeyflowers 4 years ago
Excellent!!!!!
ele12957 4 years ago