Alot of what you said I have wondered about.Even the stories of Samson and Hercules are similar.When coming on YouTube you will be met with both critics who doubt you and supporters who trust you.The first century church was Gnostic and Mary led that church not Paul.
interesting pov. I'm going to research more about the Nazareth existence in 1CE. I find it amusing however how your emotions get the better of you at times. I don't even know what people consider the writings of Paul canonical. Perhaps without it the bible simply becomes jew centered.
THANK YOU, for your time, thought and effort! It is through your efforts, attempting to free your fellow man/woman, that you show your love and appreciation for them/us. THANK YOU!! May all good things come your way.
Good effort but clearly you don't understand the topic, hugely biased and inaccurate at parts. Below you even doubt the existence of God, isn't this an anti historical view? What credible historian would doubt the existence of Jesus. You also give greater credence to a controversial and minority view amongst "scholars" it seems like you read a book by a popular author, even sceptical scholars are less extreme than your view.
@stephjh2006 I don't understand the topic, look at u asking me if the existence of god is anti-historian. Historians cannot confirm or disconfirm God, nor can history cannot prove miracles.
You did not even address any of my points. This "minority" is a respectable position and grows slightly amongst the scholar community. Many have testified their colleagues are already aware of the lack of proof for Jesus, they just won't admit it as long as it brings in a steady paycheck.
The argument that the bible was written too far from Jesus death to be reliable is wrong for 2 reasons. First that the earliest biographies of Alexander the Gret were written 400 years after his death, yet historians believe them to be reliable. Also i think they were written earlier than what is mentioned because If you read acts it seems to end before pauls death in A.D 62 Meaning Luke must have been written before that and Mark before that, 30 years at maximum from Jesus death.
@stubs31 Your arguments fail for 2 reasons: First you are ignoring the problem at hand here, a person like Jesus is never mentioned in his time (common potters on the other hand are). This is a big problem. We know the existence of Alexander for many reasons apart from biographies, we have letters from contemporary witnesses and other external evidences. As for Acts, it does not claim to be written by a witness. Even at 30 years, none the gospels we have now are written by eye-witnesses.
@Feredir28 If the crucifixion was as early as 30A.D pauls coversion was about 32. Paul was sent into Damascus. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem was about A.D 35. Meening that Paul had already given his creed that is used in 1 Corinithians 15. Stating that Jesus died for sins, was resurrected. So you are correct in saying we have other evidence for the existence of Alexander besides the biographies, but we also evidence for Jesus aside from the Gospels.
@stubs31 You are close, but not quite. We do not know exactly when Jesus died, and Paul's creed, laws, justification, and salvation differs with Luke and Matthew. A problem with Paul is that his testimonies (not the forged ones) is based on hearsay and contain contradictions, but Paul's ignorance of Jesus' life is a big problem. As I already mentioned in the film, regarding the witnesses of 1 Corinth 15, it is more propaganda than actual historical reporting. Paul does not even name the apostles
@Feredir28 Even if I am off on each of the dates by 5 years, historically speaking that is a nonissue. I was just wondering if you believed Jesus never existed or you believe He did but is not God's Son. I appreciate the time you taking to talk to me. Thanks
@stubs31 My pleasure. I think the non-existence of Jesus is likely, the other option is Jesus was an absolute nobody and the gospels over exaggerate. Ever heard of Herodotus? After the Persian Wars, Herodotus asked numerous eyewitnesses about the things that happened. He reports many strange things: for example, a flood wiped out an entire Persian contingent after they desecrated an image of Poseidon; a horse gave birth to a rabbit; and a whole town witnesses a mass resurrection of cooked fish!
@Feredir28 Do you think that the apostles and others would be willing to die painful deaths for something they knew was a lie? There arn't many people who deny the existance of the historical Jesus because they have found medical records showing Jesus was dead on the cross. Also it is generally accepted by historians that the tomb was empty. Of course there is debate on how it got to be empty but most agree it was in fact empty. So do you see Jesus as just a good teacher?
@stubs31 The evidence for a suffering disciples is rather weak, but people die for lies all the time, even today. Do tell where these medical records are, are they contemporary independent sources? Finally, the last point is incorrect. Historians only equate that it was empty to fit the story, but we do not know exactly where Jesus was buried (if at all). But the empty tomb argument is similar to making a case for Oz, see video below
@Feredir28 The Journal of the American Medical Association"Thus, it remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardio-respiratory failure...Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side...Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge." Also Stephen was stoned; throughout the book of Acts people are trying to kill paul
@stubs31 I asked for contemporary sources. These modern untestable journals are only at best speculations on the assumption that he did exist. Just like in this video, I posted a Note that Paul may have suffered from TLE, but that is at best speculation as well.
Only in the gospel stories does it say that Christians were targeted. It is easy to write your own tragedy or exaggerate to make stories sound graphic. As a historian, I would like to see external evidence (if any) of these stories.
@Feredir28 I just dont see the reason for them to exaggerate the stories. Theologically it doesnt make a diffrence weather stephen was stonned or died of old age. Also i dont understand how people could just make up Jesus. I believe the gospels were written years after Jesus death was because at first they just verbally told everyone. Once Christianity started expanding there was a need to write down a biography of christ. If Jesus never existed its hard to explin the expaninding early church
@stubs31 Remember Herodotus and his stories? It is very easy to exaggerate, and humans are good at it. Theologically I do not care, historicly I do. It is easier than you may think, religions sprouting from myths (even non-religions like William Tell), Did you catch the part in my video that showed that one of the earlist churches taught Jesus didnt exist historicly, he was just a spiritual concept? I will send you a PM to further show how Christianity could have, and likely started without Jesu
Lewis was a scholar and is considered by academia (secular as well as religious) to be one of the greatest literary historians and critics of the 20th century. So if your bast refute is that he was "not a scholar" you fail miserably. Also amongst biblical scholars (within the Gospels) the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are closest in genre to ancient biographies i.e. Plutarch’s Lives of Noble Greeks and Romans. One other thing, you look like Jesus, does that make you a myth? (Humor) :-)
@alvaboyfilms look like jesus, you're pathetic. You should consider yourself lost the argument.
There is a difference between Bible scholar and literacy critic. I doubt you accept the works of people like Bart Ehrman, who not only is critic like Lewis but actually is a New Testament scholar. Are you aware of the vast majority of critical scholars will testify that about half of the NT was written by forgers? Or that the stories int he NT parallel with OT stories nearly verbatim (esp. Matthew).
@Feredir28 Oh come on tiger put your claws away I was just having fun. Sorry, no insult intended, I just couldn't help but to point out the funny irony. It is our ability to take a joke, not make one, that proves we have a sense of humor. As far as Dr. Ehrman, yes I'm familiar with him and some of the others. I'll respond to that later. And honestly, I'm sorry if you really found that offensive....
If having very few written references to Christ outside the bible within the first 150 yrs of his crucifixion qualifies Christ as a myth, then having absolutely "NO" written references eluding to Christ as a myth until 1840 (Bruno Bauer) over 1800 yrs after the crucifixion, by its own reasoning, would render the Christ myth a "NO" possibility. Internet sensationalist and many modern Jesus Mythologist fail miserably to bring anything new to the table.
@alvaboyfilms your arguments in your video are rather pathetic. A prophecy that was easily manipulated to fit the story and a handful of discredited non-contemporary sources that do not even name Jesus. The apologetic objections (who have no historical credentials) you provided are based on theological grounds, not historical grounds. Fiction has been around a lot longer than you claim. Even the Greeks did not think all their stories were historical.
@Feredir28 You obviously didn't watch the video because I listed the credentials of Lewis before I listed his quotes in regards to the Gospels. Also when he spoke on this subject he was speaking as a literary critic, not as a Christian, a faith that he rejected most of his life. You so easily disregard the credentials of one of the most respected literary critics and literary historians of our time yet you don't give the slightest hint as to what grounds your qualified to do so. Laughable....
@alvaboyfilms your video was nothing short of a waste of time. It had nothing to provide, just old P.R.A.T.T. material. C.S. Lewis credentials are not that of an ancient historian. He is a theologian, literacy critic, and a apologist. That is the laughable part. Lewis's arguments and your own have no leg to stand on, nor do they outweigh the points I brought up in this video. Unlike Lewis, I am actually educated in the fields of ancient history, but I doubt that you have any in the slightest.
@Feredir28 So what you saying is that when you read "The Odyssey" or "Iliad" in Greek (not English translation) you noticed similarities to the writing style of the Gospels? Are your saying you've read these ancient classics and others in their original Greek or classical Latin? Your saying you could read, hmm lets say the "Bodmer Papyrus" in its Greek? Well than clearly you have grounds to refute Lewis's claim. Clearly your palate is trained in distinguishing ancient myths from reportage.
@alvaboyfilms How about Herodotus? His works on the Greeks and the Persian Wars? There I see no difference between his work and the gospels. I have taken several Greek mythology courses, my Greek is not great, but when addressing the historicity of Jesus, as an historian you are suppose to find positive proof to determine what happened. Jesus has none. No artifacts, no letters, no Nazareth, whatever. Everywhere a person would expect to find positive evidence, its not there.
@Feredir28 Lewis's claims that the Gospels are either reportage or a brilliantly written myth written by a brilliant writer without known predecessors or a successor. The details this writer used created an aura of realism that is unseen in any other ancient fiction of the first millennium. That's why characters in other ancient fiction (such as Beowulf or Iliad) don't notice the rain or falling asleep with a sigh. And your best refute to this claim is listing your credentials as a layman?
@alvaboyfilms Best refute for Lewis is that he is not a scholar or historian. I guess you did not read that part. Get in touch to the actual work of biblical scholars, especially with the fabrications and discrepancies. Even Lewis makes false comparisons and ignores the mechanism of legend, which I briefly mentioned in my video. The stories get larger as time goes by, not to mention many of the first Christians did not believe Jesus existed historically or was even born.
Of the gospels there are only two possible views (Either it is reportage Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. In short, if the Gospels are merely fictional fantasy written to support a fictional myth It would make the writers of the Gospels literary geniuses that were centuries ahead of their time. ****SEE MY VIDEO RESPONSE TO SEE WHY******
A lot of people on here get their Bibical apologetics from lying clowns like N.T. Wright; and I say liar and mean it; these apologists have to know they're full of shit, they just don't care. They're lying to people to prop up some nonsense that wouldn't make sense even IF the Bible was historically accurate and ironically is not even in the Bible. NOWHERE does the Bible say God is omnipotent! Protestants are just believing Catholic dogma when they push this crap; they don't understand the Bible
You logic compels me to tell you that you need faith! haha, its IntProbe from the discussion (blogtv) today (1/7/2011). I'll watch all your other videos in the next few days.
@Feredir28 great video, i really wish people would wake up, its scary that people that think with logic and critical thought are a minority... (eg USA - only 15% atheist)
on another note, you have ANOTHER twin, you look exactly the same as someone i know...
Oh and also, I have had the disease epilepsi years ago and don't understand your argument about Paul at all. "Visions," "Appearances" and certainly if there is any, they aren't so specific and physical as the type the Christians witnessed is anything like Paul's revelations. I just blacked out after feeling like I suffocated to death and thought I either died or was asleep or unconscious till I woke back up.
However, he 50s date for the Synoptics is very well a popular opinion among many scholars now and it is growing now from the "Third QUest" for the Historical Jesus (which is much more positive unlike the 2nd in the 20th century and 1st in the Enlightenment) and Robinson's conclusions and criticisms of the late dates decades before. I dont' have time to address EVERYTHING you said, already done to many posts simply on Gospel dates. Anyway, that's my comment as a current student in that field.
I say that from "Redating the New Testament" by a very liberal scholar Robinson who agrees on the 50s dating then dates their first drafts the authors used to based their final soruces to the 40s, and then the traditions of the Q source and then the traditions unique to each Gospel were done earlier, hence the 30s. Many scholars now accept Robinson's conclusions. Is it a consensus? No, but there really isn't much of a consensus anymore. I'd say the majorityt is still your claimed dates.
Because of that, it would tend to show the GOspels were baqsed on many eyewitness accounts if written at that time, Luke's beginning proving that to himself and since Luke obviously knew what Mark and Matthew wrote and used it, it means Luke is telling us they were also based on eyewitness records. Furthermore, that is only the FINAL compostion of the GOspels MOST scholars usually accept the first dragts and traditions the GOspels used date before their time.
However, that is just accepting the late dates anyway. On the contrary, my recent textbook now says a fair amount of scholars everywhere for the BIble accept various dates for Mark being in the 70s, 60s, 50,s and even 40s. My book went with the 50s after criticizing the other three. Being written in the 50s for the Synoptics is crucial, as it places them in Acts time period where eyewitnesses and apostles were everywhere preaching
Well I am majoring in Philosophy and New Testament scholarship, and many of your claims are not even part of a large census in the hstorica community anymore. First off, by the early 2nd century, eyewitness claims were still alive and in agreement wth the Gospels. Quadratus is a perfect example, being a witness hmself and by his claim, some were still alive. Since the Gospels were published in the late 1st century at the LATEST, there is no doubt they circulated and were known to some eyewitness
@Feredir28 By denying the existence of Jesus on Earth, you are just being ignorant. There are many credible historians who documented the existence of Jesus on Earth. The problem wasn't if he existed or not, but if he truly was divine. You should do some research and get up-to-date with today's knowledge.
@TheRealJosan You cannot deny something that did not exist. There is not one credible historian that documented the existence of jesus. None of the scribes, poets, historians of Judea ever made a note of jesus. Jerusalem was the center of education with many literate people, the Romans kept many great records of their province, but no one ever mentions a jesus
The question is indeed if he existed or not, because if he is just a work of fiction, then he is only divine in the imagination of people
Hey dude sweet vid, you have 1 more sub here dude. And fuck, you look exactly like my cousin. It's fucking scary seriously, If you stood side by side you would pass as twins
we know that none of the apostles were real. That they represent the 12 months of the zodiac. The Jesus is many things. 1. a possible Essense healer. 2. The age of Pisces. 3. Jesus as an entheogen.
Nice research, excellent video, one can only wait to see if people start asking questions and looking for the answers themselves, or if they do as usual, close the eyes, block the ears, and shut the mind away, like TC or NephillimFree, but excellent video none the less man! XD
@Kuartus The least you could do is present evidence of this refute to support your claims, otherwise you are only doing exactly the same thing as every theist does, believe without prove or evidence, just because you want to believe it was that way.
The only fact is that the buybull has never been proven to be historically accurate, just as it is with scientology.....a sci fi/fantasy book that people take WAY to seriously!
@longstrider9999 The guy mentions so many false claims that it would be ridiculous to try to refute all of them in some comment slots. It would take pages to refute these lies.
@Kuartus And only saying he is wrong without presenting proof, is just wasting everyones time, he is pressenting evidence and proof of the illogical arguments of the buybull, you could at least do the same if you want to present an argument against his evidence, otherwise is just doing what EVERYONE knows people like you do, closing your eyes, your ears, your barin, and shouting GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!
Any opportunity you had to defend your point of view was lost.
The gospels are theological documents and need to be treated as such. History wasn't important to the writers of the Gospels and the decision to include these and exclude others was taken in the fourth century CE
@johncrwarner the thing is that the average church goer never hears about textual criticism, but gets served the same old bible annectodes over and over again.
@DeletedDelusion Agreed it is quite an eye-opener to read the gospels through rather than the edited made nice christmas and easter stories they are so different in preoccupations and interests - they are evidently different perspectives theologically never mind treating them as historical documents as the right-wing evangelical inerrantists want to do.
1:36 - 1:56 - Realizing this was the biggest hit to the idea of the gospels' historicity for me. They cut and paste pieces of tradition in order to make theological points.
Paul's mentioning of 500 witnesses becomes erroneous when the synoptic Gospels themselves claim only his mother in one version, along with Mary Magdalene in another, saw Jesus' empty tomb.
hello. The Everlasting Father of the Christ has appeared
AJatheistgod 3 months ago
Alot of what you said I have wondered about.Even the stories of Samson and Hercules are similar.When coming on YouTube you will be met with both critics who doubt you and supporters who trust you.The first century church was Gnostic and Mary led that church not Paul.
JustForBrieLarson 3 months ago
interesting pov. I'm going to research more about the Nazareth existence in 1CE. I find it amusing however how your emotions get the better of you at times. I don't even know what people consider the writings of Paul canonical. Perhaps without it the bible simply becomes jew centered.
fratbrotha 6 months ago
THANK YOU, for your time, thought and effort! It is through your efforts, attempting to free your fellow man/woman, that you show your love and appreciation for them/us. THANK YOU!! May all good things come your way.
lancethrustworthy 7 months ago
Good effort but clearly you don't understand the topic, hugely biased and inaccurate at parts. Below you even doubt the existence of God, isn't this an anti historical view? What credible historian would doubt the existence of Jesus. You also give greater credence to a controversial and minority view amongst "scholars" it seems like you read a book by a popular author, even sceptical scholars are less extreme than your view.
stephjh2006 8 months ago
@stephjh2006 I don't understand the topic, look at u asking me if the existence of god is anti-historian. Historians cannot confirm or disconfirm God, nor can history cannot prove miracles.
You did not even address any of my points. This "minority" is a respectable position and grows slightly amongst the scholar community. Many have testified their colleagues are already aware of the lack of proof for Jesus, they just won't admit it as long as it brings in a steady paycheck.
Feredir28 8 months ago
The argument that the bible was written too far from Jesus death to be reliable is wrong for 2 reasons. First that the earliest biographies of Alexander the Gret were written 400 years after his death, yet historians believe them to be reliable. Also i think they were written earlier than what is mentioned because If you read acts it seems to end before pauls death in A.D 62 Meaning Luke must have been written before that and Mark before that, 30 years at maximum from Jesus death.
stubs31 9 months ago
@stubs31 Your arguments fail for 2 reasons: First you are ignoring the problem at hand here, a person like Jesus is never mentioned in his time (common potters on the other hand are). This is a big problem. We know the existence of Alexander for many reasons apart from biographies, we have letters from contemporary witnesses and other external evidences. As for Acts, it does not claim to be written by a witness. Even at 30 years, none the gospels we have now are written by eye-witnesses.
Feredir28 9 months ago
@Feredir28 If the crucifixion was as early as 30A.D pauls coversion was about 32. Paul was sent into Damascus. His first meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem was about A.D 35. Meening that Paul had already given his creed that is used in 1 Corinithians 15. Stating that Jesus died for sins, was resurrected. So you are correct in saying we have other evidence for the existence of Alexander besides the biographies, but we also evidence for Jesus aside from the Gospels.
stubs31 9 months ago
@stubs31 You are close, but not quite. We do not know exactly when Jesus died, and Paul's creed, laws, justification, and salvation differs with Luke and Matthew. A problem with Paul is that his testimonies (not the forged ones) is based on hearsay and contain contradictions, but Paul's ignorance of Jesus' life is a big problem. As I already mentioned in the film, regarding the witnesses of 1 Corinth 15, it is more propaganda than actual historical reporting. Paul does not even name the apostles
Feredir28 9 months ago
@Feredir28 Even if I am off on each of the dates by 5 years, historically speaking that is a nonissue. I was just wondering if you believed Jesus never existed or you believe He did but is not God's Son. I appreciate the time you taking to talk to me. Thanks
stubs31 9 months ago
@stubs31 My pleasure. I think the non-existence of Jesus is likely, the other option is Jesus was an absolute nobody and the gospels over exaggerate. Ever heard of Herodotus? After the Persian Wars, Herodotus asked numerous eyewitnesses about the things that happened. He reports many strange things: for example, a flood wiped out an entire Persian contingent after they desecrated an image of Poseidon; a horse gave birth to a rabbit; and a whole town witnesses a mass resurrection of cooked fish!
Feredir28 9 months ago
@Feredir28 Do you think that the apostles and others would be willing to die painful deaths for something they knew was a lie? There arn't many people who deny the existance of the historical Jesus because they have found medical records showing Jesus was dead on the cross. Also it is generally accepted by historians that the tomb was empty. Of course there is debate on how it got to be empty but most agree it was in fact empty. So do you see Jesus as just a good teacher?
stubs31 9 months ago
@stubs31 The evidence for a suffering disciples is rather weak, but people die for lies all the time, even today. Do tell where these medical records are, are they contemporary independent sources? Finally, the last point is incorrect. Historians only equate that it was empty to fit the story, but we do not know exactly where Jesus was buried (if at all). But the empty tomb argument is similar to making a case for Oz, see video below
SDhDLOiXp7g
Feredir28 9 months ago
@Feredir28 The Journal of the American Medical Association"Thus, it remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardio-respiratory failure...Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side...Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge." Also Stephen was stoned; throughout the book of Acts people are trying to kill paul
stubs31 9 months ago
@stubs31 I asked for contemporary sources. These modern untestable journals are only at best speculations on the assumption that he did exist. Just like in this video, I posted a Note that Paul may have suffered from TLE, but that is at best speculation as well.
Only in the gospel stories does it say that Christians were targeted. It is easy to write your own tragedy or exaggerate to make stories sound graphic. As a historian, I would like to see external evidence (if any) of these stories.
Feredir28 9 months ago
@Feredir28 I just dont see the reason for them to exaggerate the stories. Theologically it doesnt make a diffrence weather stephen was stonned or died of old age. Also i dont understand how people could just make up Jesus. I believe the gospels were written years after Jesus death was because at first they just verbally told everyone. Once Christianity started expanding there was a need to write down a biography of christ. If Jesus never existed its hard to explin the expaninding early church
stubs31 9 months ago
@stubs31 Remember Herodotus and his stories? It is very easy to exaggerate, and humans are good at it. Theologically I do not care, historicly I do. It is easier than you may think, religions sprouting from myths (even non-religions like William Tell), Did you catch the part in my video that showed that one of the earlist churches taught Jesus didnt exist historicly, he was just a spiritual concept? I will send you a PM to further show how Christianity could have, and likely started without Jesu
Feredir28 9 months ago
Lewis was a scholar and is considered by academia (secular as well as religious) to be one of the greatest literary historians and critics of the 20th century. So if your bast refute is that he was "not a scholar" you fail miserably. Also amongst biblical scholars (within the Gospels) the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are closest in genre to ancient biographies i.e. Plutarch’s Lives of Noble Greeks and Romans. One other thing, you look like Jesus, does that make you a myth? (Humor) :-)
alvaboyfilms 10 months ago
@alvaboyfilms look like jesus, you're pathetic. You should consider yourself lost the argument.
There is a difference between Bible scholar and literacy critic. I doubt you accept the works of people like Bart Ehrman, who not only is critic like Lewis but actually is a New Testament scholar. Are you aware of the vast majority of critical scholars will testify that about half of the NT was written by forgers? Or that the stories int he NT parallel with OT stories nearly verbatim (esp. Matthew).
Feredir28 10 months ago
@Feredir28 Oh come on tiger put your claws away I was just having fun. Sorry, no insult intended, I just couldn't help but to point out the funny irony. It is our ability to take a joke, not make one, that proves we have a sense of humor. As far as Dr. Ehrman, yes I'm familiar with him and some of the others. I'll respond to that later. And honestly, I'm sorry if you really found that offensive....
alvaboyfilms 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If having very few written references to Christ outside the bible within the first 150 yrs of his crucifixion qualifies Christ as a myth, then having absolutely "NO" written references eluding to Christ as a myth until 1840 (Bruno Bauer) over 1800 yrs after the crucifixion, by its own reasoning, would render the Christ myth a "NO" possibility. Internet sensationalist and many modern Jesus Mythologist fail miserably to bring anything new to the table.
alvaboyfilms 10 months ago
See my video ***Jesus Myth Shattered (CASE CLOSED)** to see why this is a weak argument.
alvaboyfilms 10 months ago
@alvaboyfilms your arguments in your video are rather pathetic. A prophecy that was easily manipulated to fit the story and a handful of discredited non-contemporary sources that do not even name Jesus. The apologetic objections (who have no historical credentials) you provided are based on theological grounds, not historical grounds. Fiction has been around a lot longer than you claim. Even the Greeks did not think all their stories were historical.
Final Verdict: Your case has not been made.
Feredir28 10 months ago
@Feredir28 You obviously didn't watch the video because I listed the credentials of Lewis before I listed his quotes in regards to the Gospels. Also when he spoke on this subject he was speaking as a literary critic, not as a Christian, a faith that he rejected most of his life. You so easily disregard the credentials of one of the most respected literary critics and literary historians of our time yet you don't give the slightest hint as to what grounds your qualified to do so. Laughable....
alvaboyfilms 10 months ago
@alvaboyfilms your video was nothing short of a waste of time. It had nothing to provide, just old P.R.A.T.T. material. C.S. Lewis credentials are not that of an ancient historian. He is a theologian, literacy critic, and a apologist. That is the laughable part. Lewis's arguments and your own have no leg to stand on, nor do they outweigh the points I brought up in this video. Unlike Lewis, I am actually educated in the fields of ancient history, but I doubt that you have any in the slightest.
Feredir28 10 months ago
@Feredir28 So what you saying is that when you read "The Odyssey" or "Iliad" in Greek (not English translation) you noticed similarities to the writing style of the Gospels? Are your saying you've read these ancient classics and others in their original Greek or classical Latin? Your saying you could read, hmm lets say the "Bodmer Papyrus" in its Greek? Well than clearly you have grounds to refute Lewis's claim. Clearly your palate is trained in distinguishing ancient myths from reportage.
alvaboyfilms 10 months ago
@alvaboyfilms How about Herodotus? His works on the Greeks and the Persian Wars? There I see no difference between his work and the gospels. I have taken several Greek mythology courses, my Greek is not great, but when addressing the historicity of Jesus, as an historian you are suppose to find positive proof to determine what happened. Jesus has none. No artifacts, no letters, no Nazareth, whatever. Everywhere a person would expect to find positive evidence, its not there.
Feredir28 10 months ago
@Feredir28 Lewis's claims that the Gospels are either reportage or a brilliantly written myth written by a brilliant writer without known predecessors or a successor. The details this writer used created an aura of realism that is unseen in any other ancient fiction of the first millennium. That's why characters in other ancient fiction (such as Beowulf or Iliad) don't notice the rain or falling asleep with a sigh. And your best refute to this claim is listing your credentials as a layman?
alvaboyfilms 10 months ago
@alvaboyfilms Best refute for Lewis is that he is not a scholar or historian. I guess you did not read that part. Get in touch to the actual work of biblical scholars, especially with the fabrications and discrepancies. Even Lewis makes false comparisons and ignores the mechanism of legend, which I briefly mentioned in my video. The stories get larger as time goes by, not to mention many of the first Christians did not believe Jesus existed historically or was even born.
Feredir28 10 months ago
Of the gospels there are only two possible views (Either it is reportage Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. In short, if the Gospels are merely fictional fantasy written to support a fictional myth It would make the writers of the Gospels literary geniuses that were centuries ahead of their time. ****SEE MY VIDEO RESPONSE TO SEE WHY******
alvaboyfilms 10 months ago
A lot of people on here get their Bibical apologetics from lying clowns like N.T. Wright; and I say liar and mean it; these apologists have to know they're full of shit, they just don't care. They're lying to people to prop up some nonsense that wouldn't make sense even IF the Bible was historically accurate and ironically is not even in the Bible. NOWHERE does the Bible say God is omnipotent! Protestants are just believing Catholic dogma when they push this crap; they don't understand the Bible
jumalaism 1 year ago
You are entirely too hot to be so angry...just sayin'...
tmntsuperhiros 1 year ago
You logic compels me to tell you that you need faith! haha, its IntProbe from the discussion (blogtv) today (1/7/2011). I'll watch all your other videos in the next few days.
IntelligentProbe 1 year ago
@Feredir28 great video, i really wish people would wake up, its scary that people that think with logic and critical thought are a minority... (eg USA - only 15% atheist)
on another note, you have ANOTHER twin, you look exactly the same as someone i know...
number6of6the6beast 1 year ago
So out of 474 people who've watched this video only a couple aren't douche bags?
Muffinman3670 1 year ago
@Muffinman3670 only the ones without an imaginary friend in the sky.
Feredir28 1 year ago
Comment removed
BardleyCfan 1 year ago
Oh and also, I have had the disease epilepsi years ago and don't understand your argument about Paul at all. "Visions," "Appearances" and certainly if there is any, they aren't so specific and physical as the type the Christians witnessed is anything like Paul's revelations. I just blacked out after feeling like I suffocated to death and thought I either died or was asleep or unconscious till I woke back up.
inkillerxyz1 1 year ago
However, he 50s date for the Synoptics is very well a popular opinion among many scholars now and it is growing now from the "Third QUest" for the Historical Jesus (which is much more positive unlike the 2nd in the 20th century and 1st in the Enlightenment) and Robinson's conclusions and criticisms of the late dates decades before. I dont' have time to address EVERYTHING you said, already done to many posts simply on Gospel dates. Anyway, that's my comment as a current student in that field.
inkillerxyz1 1 year ago
I say that from "Redating the New Testament" by a very liberal scholar Robinson who agrees on the 50s dating then dates their first drafts the authors used to based their final soruces to the 40s, and then the traditions of the Q source and then the traditions unique to each Gospel were done earlier, hence the 30s. Many scholars now accept Robinson's conclusions. Is it a consensus? No, but there really isn't much of a consensus anymore. I'd say the majorityt is still your claimed dates.
inkillerxyz1 1 year ago
Because of that, it would tend to show the GOspels were baqsed on many eyewitness accounts if written at that time, Luke's beginning proving that to himself and since Luke obviously knew what Mark and Matthew wrote and used it, it means Luke is telling us they were also based on eyewitness records. Furthermore, that is only the FINAL compostion of the GOspels MOST scholars usually accept the first dragts and traditions the GOspels used date before their time.
inkillerxyz1 1 year ago
However, that is just accepting the late dates anyway. On the contrary, my recent textbook now says a fair amount of scholars everywhere for the BIble accept various dates for Mark being in the 70s, 60s, 50,s and even 40s. My book went with the 50s after criticizing the other three. Being written in the 50s for the Synoptics is crucial, as it places them in Acts time period where eyewitnesses and apostles were everywhere preaching
inkillerxyz1 1 year ago
Well I am majoring in Philosophy and New Testament scholarship, and many of your claims are not even part of a large census in the hstorica community anymore. First off, by the early 2nd century, eyewitness claims were still alive and in agreement wth the Gospels. Quadratus is a perfect example, being a witness hmself and by his claim, some were still alive. Since the Gospels were published in the late 1st century at the LATEST, there is no doubt they circulated and were known to some eyewitness
inkillerxyz1 1 year ago
sorry...getting used to the new youtube format...
...thought i double posted. :-)
trac4yt 1 year ago
Comment removed
trac4yt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Feredir28
AFTER you become a NEW CREATION in Christ, Bible commentary will begin to become possible for you.
"Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2Co 5:17)
Never doubt the infaliible Bible.
Doubt finds its moorings in Hell.
Join the immortals..receive Christ.
And the eternal adventure will begin.
:-)
trac4yt 1 year ago
@Feredir28
AFTER you become a NEW CREATION in Christ, Bible commentary will begin to become possible for you.
"Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2Co 5:17)
Never doubt the infaliible Bible.
Doubt finds its moorings in Hell.
Join the immortals..receive Christ.
And the eternal adventure will begin.
:-)
trac4yt 1 year ago
God has providentially preserved HIS Word perfect in the Bible via HIS promises. It is thus sacred, infallible, and final authority.
Always dump Bible critical information created by the antichrists and sin defenders. It's all worthless.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Mt 24:35)
Download a free infallible Bible..
bibleprotector . com
:-)
trac4yt 1 year ago
@trac4yt
The bible is a very poor preserved book, it includes many alterations and mistakes, and your god can take a degree of blame on this.
Of course you can label those interested in searching for truth as antichristians, because the truth as we know does not support your field.
Quote scripture all you like, but the words are meaningless since it probably did not ever come from the mouth of jesus (if he existed).
Feredir28 1 year ago
@Feredir28 By denying the existence of Jesus on Earth, you are just being ignorant. There are many credible historians who documented the existence of Jesus on Earth. The problem wasn't if he existed or not, but if he truly was divine. You should do some research and get up-to-date with today's knowledge.
TheRealJosan 1 year ago
@TheRealJosan You cannot deny something that did not exist. There is not one credible historian that documented the existence of jesus. None of the scribes, poets, historians of Judea ever made a note of jesus. Jerusalem was the center of education with many literate people, the Romans kept many great records of their province, but no one ever mentions a jesus
The question is indeed if he existed or not, because if he is just a work of fiction, then he is only divine in the imagination of people
Feredir28 1 year ago
Hey dude sweet vid, you have 1 more sub here dude. And fuck, you look exactly like my cousin. It's fucking scary seriously, If you stood side by side you would pass as twins
1brutaldeath 1 year ago
@1brutaldeath
Thanks for tuning in.
LOL, yeah I get that sometimes. Now including your cousin, by now I must have at least 3-5 twins.
Feredir28 1 year ago
btw. is english your native language?
martialme84 1 year ago
@martialme84
Yeah. Why do I sound swedish or something?
Feredir28 1 year ago
@Feredir28 Yeah, kinda. Also you are perfectly well understandable. Many brits like Ryu are not. ;)
martialme84 1 year ago
@martialme84
Im not saying swedish is bad. But I am overal American. My half-brother is British, and I can do the accent.
Feredir28 1 year ago
we know that none of the apostles were real. That they represent the 12 months of the zodiac. The Jesus is many things. 1. a possible Essense healer. 2. The age of Pisces. 3. Jesus as an entheogen.
DecentralizedByGuilt 1 year ago
Thank you for the book recomendation.
DeletedDelusion 1 year ago
I have blind faith in pincones
Gnoma2345 1 year ago
Nice research, excellent video, one can only wait to see if people start asking questions and looking for the answers themselves, or if they do as usual, close the eyes, block the ears, and shut the mind away, like TC or NephillimFree, but excellent video none the less man! XD
longstrider9999 1 year ago
good job
ThaGMan51 1 year ago
Sweet video dude, I'll get it uploaded to the TWL channel soon (work atm) =P
RyuOni1989 1 year ago
@RyuOni1989
Thanks mate. If you can, include the TWL intro.
Feredir28 1 year ago
guy, all of your claims have already been refuted over and over again. Yet you people keep spitting out the same old fallacies. Truly sad.
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Kuartus The least you could do is present evidence of this refute to support your claims, otherwise you are only doing exactly the same thing as every theist does, believe without prove or evidence, just because you want to believe it was that way.
The only fact is that the buybull has never been proven to be historically accurate, just as it is with scientology.....a sci fi/fantasy book that people take WAY to seriously!
longstrider9999 1 year ago
@longstrider9999 The guy mentions so many false claims that it would be ridiculous to try to refute all of them in some comment slots. It would take pages to refute these lies.
Kuartus 1 year ago
@Kuartus And only saying he is wrong without presenting proof, is just wasting everyones time, he is pressenting evidence and proof of the illogical arguments of the buybull, you could at least do the same if you want to present an argument against his evidence, otherwise is just doing what EVERYONE knows people like you do, closing your eyes, your ears, your barin, and shouting GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!
Any opportunity you had to defend your point of view was lost.
longstrider9999 1 year ago
The gospels are theological documents and need to be treated as such. History wasn't important to the writers of the Gospels and the decision to include these and exclude others was taken in the fourth century CE
johncrwarner 1 year ago
@johncrwarner the thing is that the average church goer never hears about textual criticism, but gets served the same old bible annectodes over and over again.
DeletedDelusion 1 year ago
@DeletedDelusion Agreed it is quite an eye-opener to read the gospels through rather than the edited made nice christmas and easter stories they are so different in preoccupations and interests - they are evidently different perspectives theologically never mind treating them as historical documents as the right-wing evangelical inerrantists want to do.
johncrwarner 1 year ago
The history of the bible is complex indeed.
Interesting stuff, I could see this being a series.
CanadienAtheist 1 year ago
1:36 - 1:56 - Realizing this was the biggest hit to the idea of the gospels' historicity for me. They cut and paste pieces of tradition in order to make theological points.
violentlygraceful 1 year ago
plus, the early church censored the bible due to all the banned documents and stuff.
ZetaSimsoy 1 year ago
Paul's mentioning of 500 witnesses becomes erroneous when the synoptic Gospels themselves claim only his mother in one version, along with Mary Magdalene in another, saw Jesus' empty tomb.
QuestioProVerum 1 year ago