Hi saw your video and really found it interesting. I have a question for you. Do you yourself have any religious belief? and if so could you please tell me about it. I am not trying to criticize just wondering that's all.
5) The following week, are there friends who were not at the party, who could write about what your collective exerience of the party was, simply because they have heard about your account.
6) Will their writings "disprove" or "negate" anything that actual happened at the party?
@GOTTshua it is EXTREMELY unlikely that all three would write certain things in the exact same way. no one really disputes that Mathew and Luke copied from Mark.
The gospels are written by the people who lived in the powerful presence of the risen Lord in order to testify the powerful presence of Him to those who were in the Christian communities who also could live in His presence. The fact that He still is living among them in a new and powerful way sets the gospels apart from all other religious literatures not to mention of the works of the philosophers.
1. Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John were not the authors of the Gospels. We don't know who they were. Refer to the Greek text.
2. Each gospel wasn't written by a single person as you presume.
3. All the authors were not the eye-witnesses. You assumed that Mark was an eye-witness, but he wasn't.
4. Even if all of the authors were not eye-witnesses you still can't refute the veracity of the Resurrection experience that all the early Christians had.
First, you need to answer "why" the early Christians wrote the gospels because that sets the tone for resolving the "synoptic problem." Then, you need to think about the changed situation of the Christians of 70s A.D. How was it different from 30s or 40s? Notice that people don't just create a literature. Here you have "literatures." Also none of the literuatures in the world say that the dead person is still alive powerfully among the authors and the readers. That is where you should start.
you don't understand the context nor the purpose of this video, there's something called the TRUTH and there's something called BULLSHIT, calling bullshit is brave and backing up the statement is noble. The only way you can retaliate against his opinion is by saying he will change his mind at death, very, very ignorant and bigotted of you.
Only ignorant and uneducated teenage atheists assert eye witnesses are required in ancient historiography. This is false. I can cite a dozen ancient persons right now who never had contemporary writers but are accepted by historians. But Jesus did have eye witnesses anyway.
A few are Rabbi Akiba, Honi the Circle Drawer, Hillel, Shammai, Hannina Ben Dosa, Apolonius of Tyana (life written 100 years after death), the four Maccibees, Clement of Rome, Many Jewish Rebels. Hanibal, etc. Much of what we know from history comes froma single source, such as the Persian wars, many first century events, etc. The first biography of Alexander the Great was written three hundred years after his death.
No your wrong there are other sources to identify the events. Historians don't use just one source as reliable to identify a event. That's why people didn't take Plato's account of atlantis story as literate and El dorado by tribes. Alexander the Great has already been founded by other sources to be true. To say that Hstorians only take one source is wrong.
No, you are wrong. Cite me a source then. Give me one example. Many first century events are based on ONE source. Just because you say I am wrong does not prove it. The Persian wars are known only by Heroditus, many first century events have one source. Much from the middle ages comes from Saint Bede. There are many, many such examples.
Yes it seems like the persian wars was based on one source however, since the 19th century his reputation has been dramatically rehabilitated by archaeological finds which have repeatedly confirmed his version of events. Nevertheless, there are still some historians who believe Herodotus made up much of his story. See wha I mean No historian just take one source and assert the events are true, they require more evidence.
The claim that most scholars aren't Christian, is a patent falsehood. Liberal scholarship has always been the minority. The Society for Biblical Liturature has officially condemned the Jesus Seminar for their methodologies. We have two thousand years of conservative scholarship, and the best scholarship comes from Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants.
"The Society for Biblical Liturature has officially condemned the Jesus Seminar for their methodologies."
Support your claim. I checked their site and could find no official condemnation. In fact, Robert Funk, founder of the JS, was executive secretaray of SBL.
I was thinking how many times the apologists use the phrase "scholars agree", and based on scholarly agreement, they declare things as facts.
It's pretty funny that given veritas' statement (I have no way of verifying it beyond stupdying something asinine) that the vast majority of scholars aren't christians, we can say "scholars agree" that Jesus never rose from the dead. So I guess it's a fact, according to them, or all their "facts" based on scholarly agreement are void.
Seek Jesus Christ with your whole heart and He will find you. I warn you that you are taking the ideas of a few secular 'scholars' as Gospel Truth. These men and women are badly deceived, and I know because Jesus saved me while studying to become one such. I about to complete my MA in Biblical studies at a secular university on a $17,500 scholarship. They are blind, and thinking themselves wise, they have become fools. Examine yourself; cursed is the man who trusts in men, mere 'scholars'.
"cursed is the man who trusts in men, mere 'scholars'."
The bible was written by men, was it not? In fact, it could easily be said that they were scholars of their time, after all they could write. So are you saying that followers of these men's words are cursed? If I was naive enough to believe in curses, I think we would agree.
Your rant on the Synoptics leaves much to be desired. Concerning the claims of authorship, what criteria would you wish to see in establishing authorship? Can you name any early sources that specifically questioned or denied the authorships laid out by men like Irenaeus (c. 180)? Also, to claim, as you do in your conclusion, that Christians rely only on the synoptics to prove the resurrection is false. Pauline epistles do the job quite well.
I would have to say that there are 2 problems with your conclusion, that because interdependence is evident, then the Gospels are untrustworthy.
the first problem is that this only applies to matthean authorship of matthew. However in another one of our discussions we discussed the early date of the Gospels, but anyway, even if matthew was not written by an eye-witness, it was still written when the original witnesses were still alive.
Thanks for your response. The Bible is not an index of independent books, they are a compilation,a continuation of facts. The four Gospels are unigue in and of themselves. The fact that 91% is contained in Matthew is not a fact that Matthew depended on Mark, it's just so that 9% of Mark is unique in and of itself.
. To ascribe "plagerism" to the Gospel account of Matthew is pretty harsh a word when forty-two percent of Matthew's Gospel account is not to be found in any of the other three Gospels. This includes at least ten parables, or illustrations:
Plagiarism is a harsh word indeed, but if I did what Matthew did, that is exactly what they would call it when they expelled me from school; it's that simple. I never said that Matthew did not have anything original to it, just that a large part of it was a rip off of Mark, which cast serious doubts on the notion that it Matthew is the work of an eyewitness.
The weeds in the field (13:24-30), the hidden treasure (13:44), the pearl of high value (13:45, 46), the dragnet (13:47-50), the unmerciful slave (18:23-35), the workers and the denarius (20:1-16), the father and two children (21:28-32), the marriage of the king's son (22:1-14), the ten virgins (25:1-13), and the talents (25:14-30). In all, the book gives the account from the birth of Jesus, 2 B.C.E., until his meeting with his disciples just prior to his ascension, 33 C.E.
Tooltime, The sequence of my response got a little skewered in the post, so I hope it doesnt throw you. First time posting on the tube. If you prefer a different format to converse please include it in your response. Take care.
I find all of this very scary, I truly pray that each of you who doubt the validity of our Great God and His son, are blessed by the Holy Spirit with a more open mind. You know when you look at a building there is a builder, you know when you see a painting there is a painter, you don't need to see either of them to know they exist, it should be an intelligent step to say if there is a creation, there IS a Creator. A Fool says in His heart there is no God. I pray God's Blessings on each of you.
I had posted another comment and it must have got lost, I was jus making a point that many people much like yourself that wish to dispute the validity of the Bible always seem to do saying that the Bible is a bad hisorical document, one that should not be trusted, yet they will except other history books as accurate and truthful, even if they were written long after the events spoke of. Yet our Gospel accounts are dated to within the first century, some as early as 66ad.
"yet they will except other history books as accurate and truthful, even if they were written long after the events spoke of" no, we do not simply ASSUME they are accurate. They are tested to the best degree possible and large parts are accepted as legendary. As I said, few scholars actually believe that Nero fiddled as Rome Burned.
The question I would like to pose to you is this. Why is it that the Bible has been proven out over and over as a very accurate account of history? As archeologists unearth more and more things, all the places and events that are found never dispute the acurracy of the Bible, but rather prove it true over and over, why is it that we then say ok, so all the history may be true, but the Gospel accounts are false? Is this palletable to you?
To answer your question, I think you confuse accuracy in the broad sense (IE it is not a work of total fiction the way a book like Lord of the Rings is) and accuracy in the particular sense. That would be something like arguing that because Troy was discovered, The Iliad must be true. Second, you are simply WAY overstating the archeological support for the Bible and ignoring the fact that a great deal of the evidence is highly ambiguous.
I just would like to ask you a question, as I watch your videos I see a theme that goes throughout the communities that wish to dispute the historical truth of Scripture. This is that when it comes to all other history books, writtings can be written hundreds of years after an event but we take them as accurate accounts, but where Biblical Texts are used they are disreguarded and said to be written or changed to suit the desired end.
I want to clear something up. First of all, you see to believe that I have an inherent trust for all works of ancient history except the Bible, and you are simply wrong. As I said in another one of my videos, historians to not actually take Herodotus or Xenophon at their word. Second, you conflate the bible as a whole with the gospels in particular which only a zealot would deny the high likelihood that certain stories about Jesus were invented to suit the gospel writer's needs.
Ok, again I am not here to try and change your views, I feel it is my obligation to share what I believe, in the sence that I truly do not wish anyone to die and go to hell, but in the end each of us has to make our own decision. But if you could answer this question I know you have heard before, if I am wrong and I die what will I lose, if you are wrong and you die what will you lose? Blessings to you all.
I would ask you to watch my video "standing in for Theamazingathiest part 1" In which I reply to this question (the philosophical name for it is Pascal's Wager)
Papias' testimony has no precedent for being hearsay or to be invented from the very nature of its content: it doesn't have the deep reverence prevalent for the apostolic character that you would expect one would, and he was a "hearer of John the presbyter"
I never said that you said John was a synoptic gospel. The fourth gospel's independence simply provides a view that is totally different from the synoptics yet does not deny the Messianic (and divine) character of Christ.
If Matthew copied Ur-Mark it goes to show that he did not want to write a history 20 or so years after the event when he had one (which he certainly ammended, though minorly) from about 5 ago.
Firstly the differences between Mark and the other two rules out that they used the gospel in its final form, the way we have it now. The ancient witness of Papias says that Mark recorded what Peter, an eyewitness, told him, and Matthew wrote the sayings or "Q". Not to mention that John is entirely different, so this whole argument is false.
I never said John was a synoptic gospel. Even if they did not copy mark it its final form, they copied him not the less, and why should we trust Papias?
Holy shit dude! You're fucking bringing it with these last three vids. 'It's Easter Sunday, so why not refute the Resurrection?' Classic! I hope you garner some good responses, because this is a very formidable argument. I'm glad it's not troubling to me and I don't have to try and get around it!
They don't simply say it was a real event, they give the accounts almost scientific credibility. As we all know science requires testability, and repeatability. If something is an anomoly, and can't be reproduced ie raising from the dead, someone or a group of people is likely either lying, or mistaken, or the report is innacurate, to see the resurrection otherwise requires an initial state of credulity that is generally only seen in the faithfull.
I don't, THEY believe IF we concluded the reports are represented accurately it means it can be conclude with scientific certainty that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. The reality is if I, for example, claimed I was going to rise from the dead, and then did so. Even IF it was witnessed by multiple independant sources that I was indeed dead, and had indeed risen. Most people, including most Christians, perhaps more readilly than scientists, would dismiss the account as baloney.
Hi saw your video and really found it interesting. I have a question for you. Do you yourself have any religious belief? and if so could you please tell me about it. I am not trying to criticize just wondering that's all.
fromero69 1 year ago
Homework for you:
1) You and your buddies go to a raging party.
2) Afterwards, when you are each home alone, write about the party.
3) Then read and compare each of the accounts.
4) Did you or your friends "plagiarize" from each other?
GOTTshua 1 year ago
5) The following week, are there friends who were not at the party, who could write about what your collective exerience of the party was, simply because they have heard about your account.
6) Will their writings "disprove" or "negate" anything that actual happened at the party?
GOTTshua 1 year ago
@GOTTshua it is EXTREMELY unlikely that all three would write certain things in the exact same way. no one really disputes that Mathew and Luke copied from Mark.
tooltime9901 1 year ago
The gospels are written by the people who lived in the powerful presence of the risen Lord in order to testify the powerful presence of Him to those who were in the Christian communities who also could live in His presence. The fact that He still is living among them in a new and powerful way sets the gospels apart from all other religious literatures not to mention of the works of the philosophers.
senarium 2 years ago
The "are" in the first sentence should be corrected to "were." It's my mistake..
senarium 2 years ago
1. Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John were not the authors of the Gospels. We don't know who they were. Refer to the Greek text.
2. Each gospel wasn't written by a single person as you presume.
3. All the authors were not the eye-witnesses. You assumed that Mark was an eye-witness, but he wasn't.
4. Even if all of the authors were not eye-witnesses you still can't refute the veracity of the Resurrection experience that all the early Christians had.
senarium 2 years ago
First, you need to answer "why" the early Christians wrote the gospels because that sets the tone for resolving the "synoptic problem." Then, you need to think about the changed situation of the Christians of 70s A.D. How was it different from 30s or 40s? Notice that people don't just create a literature. Here you have "literatures." Also none of the literuatures in the world say that the dead person is still alive powerfully among the authors and the readers. That is where you should start.
senarium 2 years ago
you don't understand the context nor the purpose of this video, there's something called the TRUTH and there's something called BULLSHIT, calling bullshit is brave and backing up the statement is noble. The only way you can retaliate against his opinion is by saying he will change his mind at death, very, very ignorant and bigotted of you.
conman2317 2 years ago
there is nothing comforting to me about belief in a lie.
christianity has discredited itself.
when i am on my deathbed i will reflect on my life and know i lived and loved and that like everything else i too must come to an end.
after that i can die knowing i will be remembered by a few.
modevotion1 2 years ago
Only ignorant and uneducated teenage atheists assert eye witnesses are required in ancient historiography. This is false. I can cite a dozen ancient persons right now who never had contemporary writers but are accepted by historians. But Jesus did have eye witnesses anyway.
Apologist117 2 years ago
Then name them instead of saying it.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
Comment removed
Apologist117 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A few are Rabbi Akiba, Honi the Circle Drawer, Hillel, Shammai, Hannina Ben Dosa, Apolonius of Tyana (life written 100 years after death), the four Maccibees, Clement of Rome, Many Jewish Rebels. Hanibal, etc. Much of what we know from history comes froma single source, such as the Persian wars, many first century events, etc. The first biography of Alexander the Great was written three hundred years after his death.
Apologist117 2 years ago
No your wrong there are other sources to identify the events. Historians don't use just one source as reliable to identify a event. That's why people didn't take Plato's account of atlantis story as literate and El dorado by tribes. Alexander the Great has already been founded by other sources to be true. To say that Hstorians only take one source is wrong.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
No, you are wrong. Cite me a source then. Give me one example. Many first century events are based on ONE source. Just because you say I am wrong does not prove it. The Persian wars are known only by Heroditus, many first century events have one source. Much from the middle ages comes from Saint Bede. There are many, many such examples.
Apologist117 2 years ago
Yes it seems like the persian wars was based on one source however, since the 19th century his reputation has been dramatically rehabilitated by archaeological finds which have repeatedly confirmed his version of events. Nevertheless, there are still some historians who believe Herodotus made up much of his story. See wha I mean No historian just take one source and assert the events are true, they require more evidence.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
they are not required but they provide credibility.
DanielCriticalMX 2 years ago
@Apologist117 the creator of this video is 26
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
The claim that most scholars aren't Christian, is a patent falsehood. Liberal scholarship has always been the minority. The Society for Biblical Liturature has officially condemned the Jesus Seminar for their methodologies. We have two thousand years of conservative scholarship, and the best scholarship comes from Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants.
Apologist117 2 years ago
"The Society for Biblical Liturature has officially condemned the Jesus Seminar for their methodologies."
Support your claim. I checked their site and could find no official condemnation. In fact, Robert Funk, founder of the JS, was executive secretaray of SBL.
RationalRat 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
I was thinking how many times the apologists use the phrase "scholars agree", and based on scholarly agreement, they declare things as facts.
It's pretty funny that given veritas' statement (I have no way of verifying it beyond stupdying something asinine) that the vast majority of scholars aren't christians, we can say "scholars agree" that Jesus never rose from the dead. So I guess it's a fact, according to them, or all their "facts" based on scholarly agreement are void.
DickJohnson3434 2 years ago
awesome vid thanks!
brittanymlove 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Seek Jesus Christ with your whole heart and He will find you. I warn you that you are taking the ideas of a few secular 'scholars' as Gospel Truth. These men and women are badly deceived, and I know because Jesus saved me while studying to become one such. I about to complete my MA in Biblical studies at a secular university on a $17,500 scholarship. They are blind, and thinking themselves wise, they have become fools. Examine yourself; cursed is the man who trusts in men, mere 'scholars'.
Enoch2 3 years ago
"cursed is the man who trusts in men, mere 'scholars'."
The bible was written by men, was it not? In fact, it could easily be said that they were scholars of their time, after all they could write. So are you saying that followers of these men's words are cursed? If I was naive enough to believe in curses, I think we would agree.
wizardofohm 3 years ago 7
Your rant on the Synoptics leaves much to be desired. Concerning the claims of authorship, what criteria would you wish to see in establishing authorship? Can you name any early sources that specifically questioned or denied the authorships laid out by men like Irenaeus (c. 180)? Also, to claim, as you do in your conclusion, that Christians rely only on the synoptics to prove the resurrection is false. Pauline epistles do the job quite well.
JoshRatliff 3 years ago
I would have to say that there are 2 problems with your conclusion, that because interdependence is evident, then the Gospels are untrustworthy.
the first problem is that this only applies to matthean authorship of matthew. However in another one of our discussions we discussed the early date of the Gospels, but anyway, even if matthew was not written by an eye-witness, it was still written when the original witnesses were still alive.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
continuing: and it (matthew) was still based on extremely early tradition.
the next problem is that we still have John's Gospel, but there is a wealth of evidence that John was written by an eye-witness.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I love all of your videos :) Very insightful
pastelmoon 3 years ago 3
Very impressive videos. I'm loving your reasoning. Very, very entertaining.
ObbiQuiet 3 years ago 2
What evidence lends you to believe that Matthew depended on Mark?
pskerin 3 years ago
That fact that 91% of mark is contained in Matthew, often word for word (aka plagiarism)
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Thanks for your response. The Bible is not an index of independent books, they are a compilation,a continuation of facts. The four Gospels are unigue in and of themselves. The fact that 91% is contained in Matthew is not a fact that Matthew depended on Mark, it's just so that 9% of Mark is unique in and of itself.
pskerin 3 years ago
. To ascribe "plagerism" to the Gospel account of Matthew is pretty harsh a word when forty-two percent of Matthew's Gospel account is not to be found in any of the other three Gospels. This includes at least ten parables, or illustrations:
pskerin 3 years ago
Plagiarism is a harsh word indeed, but if I did what Matthew did, that is exactly what they would call it when they expelled me from school; it's that simple. I never said that Matthew did not have anything original to it, just that a large part of it was a rip off of Mark, which cast serious doubts on the notion that it Matthew is the work of an eyewitness.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
The weeds in the field (13:24-30), the hidden treasure (13:44), the pearl of high value (13:45, 46), the dragnet (13:47-50), the unmerciful slave (18:23-35), the workers and the denarius (20:1-16), the father and two children (21:28-32), the marriage of the king's son (22:1-14), the ten virgins (25:1-13), and the talents (25:14-30). In all, the book gives the account from the birth of Jesus, 2 B.C.E., until his meeting with his disciples just prior to his ascension, 33 C.E.
pskerin 3 years ago
Tooltime, The sequence of my response got a little skewered in the post, so I hope it doesnt throw you. First time posting on the tube. If you prefer a different format to converse please include it in your response. Take care.
pskerin 3 years ago
I find all of this very scary, I truly pray that each of you who doubt the validity of our Great God and His son, are blessed by the Holy Spirit with a more open mind. You know when you look at a building there is a builder, you know when you see a painting there is a painter, you don't need to see either of them to know they exist, it should be an intelligent step to say if there is a creation, there IS a Creator. A Fool says in His heart there is no God. I pray God's Blessings on each of you.
PastorArtKlemme 3 years ago
Does the ID argument ever actually work? Do any of your Christian truisms ever work?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Greetings to you,
I had posted another comment and it must have got lost, I was jus making a point that many people much like yourself that wish to dispute the validity of the Bible always seem to do saying that the Bible is a bad hisorical document, one that should not be trusted, yet they will except other history books as accurate and truthful, even if they were written long after the events spoke of. Yet our Gospel accounts are dated to within the first century, some as early as 66ad.
PastorArtKlemme 3 years ago
"yet they will except other history books as accurate and truthful, even if they were written long after the events spoke of" no, we do not simply ASSUME they are accurate. They are tested to the best degree possible and large parts are accepted as legendary. As I said, few scholars actually believe that Nero fiddled as Rome Burned.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Greetings once again,
The question I would like to pose to you is this. Why is it that the Bible has been proven out over and over as a very accurate account of history? As archeologists unearth more and more things, all the places and events that are found never dispute the acurracy of the Bible, but rather prove it true over and over, why is it that we then say ok, so all the history may be true, but the Gospel accounts are false? Is this palletable to you?
PastorArtKlemme 3 years ago
To answer your question, I think you confuse accuracy in the broad sense (IE it is not a work of total fiction the way a book like Lord of the Rings is) and accuracy in the particular sense. That would be something like arguing that because Troy was discovered, The Iliad must be true. Second, you are simply WAY overstating the archeological support for the Bible and ignoring the fact that a great deal of the evidence is highly ambiguous.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Greetings to you,
I just would like to ask you a question, as I watch your videos I see a theme that goes throughout the communities that wish to dispute the historical truth of Scripture. This is that when it comes to all other history books, writtings can be written hundreds of years after an event but we take them as accurate accounts, but where Biblical Texts are used they are disreguarded and said to be written or changed to suit the desired end.
PastorArtKlemme 3 years ago
I want to clear something up. First of all, you see to believe that I have an inherent trust for all works of ancient history except the Bible, and you are simply wrong. As I said in another one of my videos, historians to not actually take Herodotus or Xenophon at their word. Second, you conflate the bible as a whole with the gospels in particular which only a zealot would deny the high likelihood that certain stories about Jesus were invented to suit the gospel writer's needs.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Ok, again I am not here to try and change your views, I feel it is my obligation to share what I believe, in the sence that I truly do not wish anyone to die and go to hell, but in the end each of us has to make our own decision. But if you could answer this question I know you have heard before, if I am wrong and I die what will I lose, if you are wrong and you die what will you lose? Blessings to you all.
PastorArtKlemme 3 years ago
I would ask you to watch my video "standing in for Theamazingathiest part 1" In which I reply to this question (the philosophical name for it is Pascal's Wager)
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Papias' testimony has no precedent for being hearsay or to be invented from the very nature of its content: it doesn't have the deep reverence prevalent for the apostolic character that you would expect one would, and he was a "hearer of John the presbyter"
renassault 3 years ago
I never said that you said John was a synoptic gospel. The fourth gospel's independence simply provides a view that is totally different from the synoptics yet does not deny the Messianic (and divine) character of Christ.
If Matthew copied Ur-Mark it goes to show that he did not want to write a history 20 or so years after the event when he had one (which he certainly ammended, though minorly) from about 5 ago.
renassault 3 years ago
Firstly the differences between Mark and the other two rules out that they used the gospel in its final form, the way we have it now. The ancient witness of Papias says that Mark recorded what Peter, an eyewitness, told him, and Matthew wrote the sayings or "Q". Not to mention that John is entirely different, so this whole argument is false.
renassault 3 years ago
I never said John was a synoptic gospel. Even if they did not copy mark it its final form, they copied him not the less, and why should we trust Papias?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
You're awesome. :D
tehknologik 3 years ago
I should say that you did raise some good points to Kabane, which I borrow in later videos.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Holy shit dude! You're fucking bringing it with these last three vids. 'It's Easter Sunday, so why not refute the Resurrection?' Classic! I hope you garner some good responses, because this is a very formidable argument. I'm glad it's not troubling to me and I don't have to try and get around it!
eyemran 3 years ago
I personally think these first 3 are just setting the stage for more damaging videos to come.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Nice! I look forward to them! Dude, I hope you get some vid responses, because I want to see how cats respond to this.
eyemran 3 years ago
They don't simply say it was a real event, they give the accounts almost scientific credibility. As we all know science requires testability, and repeatability. If something is an anomoly, and can't be reproduced ie raising from the dead, someone or a group of people is likely either lying, or mistaken, or the report is innacurate, to see the resurrection otherwise requires an initial state of credulity that is generally only seen in the faithfull.
TheNakedAtheist 3 years ago
May I ask in what why you think their accounts are 'almost scientific credibility'
tooltime9901 3 years ago
I don't, THEY believe IF we concluded the reports are represented accurately it means it can be conclude with scientific certainty that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. The reality is if I, for example, claimed I was going to rise from the dead, and then did so. Even IF it was witnessed by multiple independant sources that I was indeed dead, and had indeed risen. Most people, including most Christians, perhaps more readilly than scientists, would dismiss the account as baloney.
TheNakedAtheist 3 years ago
Nice job. All three favored. Excellent work.
wayman29 3 years ago
The resurrection never occurred--just fanatical people using imagination and zeal to recruit members to their cult--all nonsense.
NEWSTOGOD 3 years ago