Excavating The Empty Tomb (beyond a reasonable doubt) PART 3

[laflugantabastardo]

I'm not sure what the 666 verses are supposed to signify. It seems like a pretty silly and irrelevant claim... unless there is some reason I should take it seriously.

[zeldaofarel]

The first example of written fanfiction. :D

[TruthSurge]

@zeldaofarel no, NOT the first. many examples of people copying Homer PRIOR to Mark could be cited. :) However, I'd say Mark's is by far, the most famous.

[shrikechan]

Wow, Matthew's writing was so frilly and stupid-sounding compared to Mark's.

[shrikechan]

@shrikechan whoever "Mark" was, that is :)

[perichoresis7]

Anyway, sorry to spam your comments section like that. hahah Just wanted to voice some thoughts. I am enjoying the series thoroughly though and love they way it is making my mind work. A little fire and a hammer hardens steel.

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 it's fine. Just absorb first, make notes, then ask me anything after you've watched them. You might answer your own questions too!

[perichoresis7]

...resurrection story, but instead pulled from a broader range of sources than Mark. Also, side note: This does not make any Gospel superior to any other; they all come at the events of Jesus from a different perspective/background/traditi­on and therefore bring to the table an equally important account of those events. With that said, I can understand how you could say much of what I just said is "speculation", but it is clear we do NOT have ALL of the sources the authors used.

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 "I would say Mt. Lk. & Jn. did not "create" a ress"

I completely disagree. Since Mark had none and ALL of the post ress accts contradict each other, the ONLY explanation that fits is that copyists (not necessarily our matthew, luke, john) were creating these details on their own via their own inputs. We aren't talking small variations. It's why we see MULTIPLE endings IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK! they were creating the ending they wanted.

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge Very true. But because I do not hold that the authors were eyewitness (but instead writers in a community who wrote down the true stories of Jesus' life that had carried on the previous few decades), I understand how pieces of information are missed, different, out of order, or even nonsense. But a literary mistake or oversight just can't translate into a complete fallacy in my mind. Human mistakes do not disprove the fact that Jesus rose. But you knew I'd say that. :)

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 but deliberate fiction calls an account into question and enough of that will render the work unreliable because we then cannot know what was fiction and what was history. and that is what I'm trying to show. We have TONS of evidence screaming that it was all fiction (all of the Jesus life events anyway).

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge True. This is an issue that we will never "know" because the evidence is not absolute either direction. Some arguments are stronger for you, while others (all though maybe fewer) are stronger for me. But I love that. What is light with out darkness; life without death; good without evil; new without old; faith without doubt? 

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 I have no worries. I consider myself to have seen far too much to be wrong in my overall conclusion that Christianity is false. But I think you are worried that YOU may have to alter your beliefs. I wouldn't worry. I used to be you. and look at me now? I'm AWESOME! hahahahhaha j/k

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge hahahah I am not worried; if anything I am frustrated because I can't find the explanations for some of my beliefs (speaking about the construction of the Bible, not my faith) in my books. hahah A few times I have gone to my books and forget which book says what and where it is. Frustrating. Thus we find an advantage to your internet. :)

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 yep. I can't remember all that either. I don't need to remember WHERE the library books are stored. I know how to use the card catalog. :)

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge haha Yeah, but my book collection does not have a card catalog... or enough shelf space. haha

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 Yeah, sometimes it's hard finding stuff again unless the author did REALLY good indexing/notes/etc. One day, all info will be digital. Write that down. DOH! hahahaha made a funny. get it? WRITE that down? oh well.

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge hahaha That will be great.

[perichoresis7]

...(as it is often called) that the authors most likely used. These writings ("Q", hymns, poems, songs, and signs) were all being written a little before and around the time "Mark" was beginning to write, so he may not have had everything at his disposal that Matt., Luke, and John had (therefore they more information about events Mark left out). There were most likely resurrection narratives written around the time of Mark (maybe in "Q"), so I would say Mt. Lk. & Jn. did not "create" a...

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 "There were most likely resurrection narratives written around the time of Mark (maybe in "Q"),"

evidence?

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge haha Touche. It is a nice thought though. I can wish. hahah But let me tell ya, it's a good thing for us Christians we found the Gospel of Judas and not some book we call "Q" (an attempt at sarcasm).

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 The gospel of Judas if also fiction. w/o Mark's Judas character there would have been no gospel of Judas.

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 as for Q, what is the necessity of it? I cannot for the life of me see one except that some Christian theologians found it unpalatable to conclude that one author actually invented some of the details.

[perichoresis7]

...needed in his mind. The original author was writing a condensed version; he was just hitting the highlights and putting the important information down. Going beyond an empty tomb simply must've been clear enough in his mind and no further information was needed to communicate what he desired to communicate about this actual event. On another issue, you haven't really discussed the sources they used that we do not have. For instance "Q", Christological hymns, poems, and the "Book of Signs"...

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 I see no need for "Q" and which hymns are present in Mark? and what in the "Book of Signs" would be in Mark? There is a lot of stuff I probably won't touch on for 2 main reasons: 1, I'm unaware of it and 2, no time to add everything there is to say. Unaware might mean I am aware in general but not in detail. If you have good pts ref these, by all means post and it is possible I might learn something!

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge All of my references are in books. :/ I couldn't find anything solid on the internet; just some ramblings on how "Q" was another source used by the authors and some Pauline Christological hymns (Philipp. 2:6-11 for instance). I'll look some more later and see if I find anything.

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 What I'm asking you is this: 1, what is the NECESSITY of Q? I see none. It is a 100% hypothetical work (iow, it was invented by Christians who couldn't stomach the idea that Luke might actually INVENT some of his details apart from a prev work).

and 2, do any of these hymns show up in MARK? I know they do in Paul. If they don't in Mark, there is nothing to say ref Mark except that we see an even stronger division between orthodoxy and the gnostic thread.

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge The hymns are not clearly present in Mark, but could have possibly been a source. That is the short answer. haha As for "Q", it seems clear that Matt. and Luke wrote separate from one another, and both Gospels contain large sections of mark in them. But Both Gospels also contain extremely similar sections that are not in Mark, so if Matt. & Lk. wrote separately we must have a well known (at the time) secondary source. Thus, "Q".

[perichoresis7]

@perichoresis7 "Q" is therefore important because it demonstrates that we do not have ALL of the information that was at the authors' disposal. Who knows what could be in that lost source; all we know is it was known because at least Matt. and Luke use it. It could've even been used by Mark some, but there is no way to see where "Q" overlaps in Mark because of how much the other two Gospels use "Mark" and/or "Q".

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 I assume you got my priv msg on Q? It is a fantasy dreamed up to try and remove the clear fact that Luke had invented details Mark and Matthew did not have and that Luke had in fact COPIED from Matthew (the common stuff between Matthew and Luke). Hate to break it to ya! :)

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge Your argument is plausible, but it would be much more plausible if we had more evidence to support a later dating of Luke.

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 haha I just replied with that. We do have evidence. There are passages in Luke that seem to come directly from Josephus' writings. Antiquities of the Jews would be ca. 95 CE but would take a bit of time to circulate around so that would set a lower limit of 95 CE for Luke's gospel.

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 Occam's razor, bro.

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge hahah Sometimes simplicity is not that simple. Also, I will probably never be a professor because of this: I am not very good at simplifying complex concepts.

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 "The hymns are not clearly present in Mark, but could have possibly been a source."

Possibly. Possibly.  Possibly. Hope springs eternal. Gosh, I hope there's an afterlife! I hope all this stuff TruthSurge is showing is FALSE!

I'm showing facts with solid conclusions. You're giving me nothing but pure speculations. I'll keep what I got, Monty. :)

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 Newsflash: Luke copied Mark AND Matthew.

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge Ah ha! I see where we're confusing one another. You solve the synoptic problem by saying Luke sprang from Mark and Matt., while I say they both did use Mark but Matt. and Luke's similarities arise out of a secondary source we assign the name "Q". Also, I believe Luke was written between 80 and 100 AD (Most likely around 85-90), and my source for this is renowned Biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown; not wikipedia. :)

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 "I believe Luke was written between 80 and 100 AD (Most likely around 85-90), and my source for this is renowned Biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown; not wikipedia. :)"

Name-dropping. nice! but why rely on one scholar's opinion? why not rely on the evidence instead? It has come to light that "Luke" used Josephus' writings to include historical data in his own work. This would mean that he could NOT have written "Luke" any earlier than about 96 or 97 CE but

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 most likely, much later as the theology of Luke is not at all what we find in the 1st century. Most likely, it's something like 120, 130 CE. And I don't rely on wiki. I rely on my brain and the evidence I FIND on places such as wiki. Try it sometime. :)

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge hahaha I'm trying! But the evidence for a 80 to 100 Anno Domini (hahaha just being ornery) is just as convincing as a 120-130 dating. There is a lot that could be said on this issue, but I will let what I am sending you next week do the talking for I am not as wise as he (or you for that matter).

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 I'm just telling you things I think are true. I could be wrong. Some people actually push the NT dates WAY late like gospels way up to 130 to 180 CE. In no way do I agree with that. There are things that don't line up with that idea and so my world has to line up every way. I don't want to shoehorn anything anymore! Unless it's a very rare exception which I can't make fit any other way. Better 99 solid puzzle pieces and 1 odd 1 than 73 fitting and 27 odd. :)

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge I can respect that. We play with the toys we're given. If my level of understanding leads me to believe "A" and yours leads you to believe "B", nothing is wrong with that. I'm just happy to discuss it back and forth with someone who actually cares about the issues; too many people enjoy shouting at the rain.

[perichoresis7]

I also thought it was funny how you included pieces of information that I had stated in a previous comment on another video (the uncommon Greek of the long ending, Matt. using the shorter version of Mark, etc.). but here are a few statements & questions. The original author clearly did not see a need for a "full" resurrection account, but assuming that something is implied does not make it untrue. The author clearly saw the empty tomb as the proof of Jesus' resurrection. Nothing more was...

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 I'd agree. Mark does not leave it totally open-ended but has the lad confirming what the empty tomb implies so I have no problem with a Mark who believed Jesus actually did rise from the dead.

[perichoresis7]

First thing I'd like to say is this: atheists should look to you as their exemplar. I have had too many conversations with atheists who throw singular verses at me like it's going to do something. While you actually have acquired knowledge and construct good arguments with that knowledge. Atheists are often very smart (at least in my experience), but usually only have a basic knowledge of pieces of the Bible that they think can serve their desired purpose. So again, well done.

[TruthSurge]

@perichoresis7 thanks! well, I don't present myself as a "celebrity" as many of these YT atheists seem to do. and that's fine. I'm happy dancing on the edge in partial shadow. If I had more subs I'd never get anything done. :)

Thanks for the compliment!!! Hope you get something out of these.

[perichoresis7]

@TruthSurge hahaha I have no idea how you don't have more subs. And you're welcome.

[karlbuttler]

Hey truthsurge great video's up to this point, cant waite to watch the rest,im going to end here tonight.

[TruthSurge]

@karlbuttler thanks! yeah, don't glut yourself all at once. You might get indigestion. hehehehe 13 vids or so x 10 min. that's 2 hrs!

[2eelShmeal]

Mooseknuckle

[TruthSurge]

@2eelShmeal what? what da hell dat bee?

[winterstellar]

This is fantastic, and it is great to have confirmed more and more what I suspected since I was a little kid, namely that christianity was based on a work of fiction, a crappy novel. I am looking forward also for more proof of "Jesus" never even existing, like I have been since I was introduced to christianity as kid and angrily reacted to it it as an insult to my intelligenvce, the dumbest fairytale I'd ever heard! : )

[TruthSurge]

@winterstellar thanks. yeah, this series will have a bit more on the fictional nature of Christianity. next vid will show some of the verses in the OT from where Jesus' life was derived. Christians will say it's prophecy fulfillment. But that doesn't explain everything we see in the gospels along those lines.

[psofic2]

του γενους is typical Greek expression, i am not speaking Hebrew but i doubt that they have a word to describe common mother, nationality, race and generation ; for me it is more than clear that the addition was written by a fluent Greek speaker reffering to foreigners . Note that back in the 3rd century people were speaking almost an identical language with modern Greek (Koine).

[TruthSurge]

@psofic2 I don't read/write Greek so what does that term translate to in English? I couldn't even find it in a lexicon or translator online.

[Katalyzt]

Nicely done TruthSurge... ★★★★★

Katalyzt

[TruthSurge]

@Katalyzt thanks. why did i not see this comment b4?

[JamesSnapp]

There are so many distortions and half-truths in this presentation, it is hard to know where to begin any sort of critique. Perhaps the first thing to notice is that where Matthew parallels Mark, Matthew is the one with the shorter narrative, not Mark -- which tends to disintegrate one of the narrator's foundational premises. Also, the claim that Mark 16:9-20 is absent from "many early mss" is just not true.

[TruthSurge]

@JamesSnapp "There are so many distortions and half-truths in this presentation,"

Let me take a WILD guess. You're a Christian?

[JamesSnapp]

@TruthSurge - Trying to be. But it does not matter if I were Bernard de Clairvaux or Genghis Khan; your presentation has many distortions and misrepresentations regardless of the beliefs of the observer: you have some facts wrong.  (For example, the claim that Mark 16:9-20 is absent from "many early mss" is false.)

[TruthSurge]

@JamesSnapp "Trying to be. But it does not matter if I were Bernard de Clairvaux or Genghis Khan;"

Wrong again. It's well established that bias is present where some love of a thing is present. If you believe that the story about Jesus is true (the main idea of him dying for your sins) then you will automatically have a bias against ANYONE criticizing that belief system. To deny this is to deny the very nature of how our brains work.

So, yes, it matters.

[TruthSurge]

@JamesSnapp "(For example, the claim that Mark 16:9-20 is absent from "many early mss" is false.)"

You didn't watch the previous vids?  PLEASE, do YOURSELF a HUGE favor and watch the previous parts where I go into GREAT DETAIL about WHY 9-20 were never part of the original story by Mark. This will illuminate the issue for you.

[TruthSurge]

@JamesSnapp  watch?v=msZ5X3uyeeA Starts around 4 min and something.

Once you've watched this vid, then come back and tell me that 9-20 was not missing in the earliest and best mss of Mark. I'm serious. I want to hear what you say after watching this vid.

[JamesSnapp]

@TruthSurge -- Okay: Mark 16:9-20 was not missing in the earliest and best MSS of Mark. Also, the term for MS 304 is "minuscule," not "miniscule." And, a couple of times you referred to verses "9-12" when you meant 9-20 instead. Also, you misinterpreted the margin-note in Codex Sinaiticus at Mk. 16:6; that is simple a correction, not evidence that the copyist had disagreeing exemplars. This comment-space is not sufficient to describe all of your errors.

[TruthSurge]

@JamesSnapp "Okay: Mark 16:9-20 was not missing in the earliest and best MSS of Mark."

You still haven't watched part 2, have you?

""minuscule," not "miniscule." "

Absolutely right. I will annotate the vid(s) to correct that.

"And, a couple of times you referred to verses "9-12" when you meant 9-20 instead."

I will also check parts 2 and 3 and annotate any of these mistakes.

"you misinterpreted the margin-note in Codex Sinaiticus at Mk. 16:6;"

That's a matter of opinion, not fact.

[JamesSnapp]

@TruthSurge - I watched parts 1 and 2. I recommend that you watch my two lectures on Mark 16:9-20 that are available here at YouTube. Manuscripts used in the 100's by Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus (and probably by the anonymous author of "Epistula Apostolorum") included Mk. 16:9-20. Also bear in mind that Eusebius described the MSS in different ways, framing the descriptions as things that one might say. He recommended that Marinus punctuate and retain verses 9-20.

[TruthSurge]

@JamesSnapp Well, if you want to ignore all of what I presented and go with your pet views, more power to you. If you want to argue against Bruce Metzger et all, more power to you. But I really am not enticed to watch your vids when you have already engaged in extreme hyperbole by saying my vids had tons of errors when in fact, you've only found two MINOR typos.

Good luck my friend.

[TruthSurge]

@JamesSnapp "This comment-space is not sufficient to describe all of your errors. "

Sure it is. You can reply as many times as you need and in fact, I long to know about any factual errors that may exist in my vids because I'm all about putting accurate info in my vids.

So, please do feel free to comment liberally with any other factual errors you might catch.

But I'll still wait for you to respond about your claim that vs 9-20 were not missing in the earliest mss of Mark.

[TruthSurge]

@JamesSnapp I found ONE time where I put 9-12 instead of 9-20 and added a fix and added a fix for minuscule.

You said I mentioned 9-12 a COUPLE of times. Can you tell me where the other instance is in that vid (part 2)? I don't see it in my word doc but one I did find was a voice over that said 9-20 where my doc said 9-12 (why I wrote 12 I have no idea).

[TruthSurge]

@JamesSnapp So, you found two MINISCULE errors that had nothing to do with the pt or evidence in my vid.

I'll wait for your reply on how you can say that 9-20 was NOT missing from many early mss.

[Turgor]

So basically the bible is mostly fanfic and in need of some serious retcon

[YouBloodyFool]

These videos deserve many more views.

[TruthSurge]

@YouBloodyFool thank ya

[2eelShmeal]

At the beginning of these I keep waiting to hear "The Simp-sons" lol

The tone sounds the same...

Seriously though, I never knew the depths of the problems of the NT. I knew there were inconsistencies but had no idea that things were this fucked up. If the average believer had enough BALLS to delve half as deep into what they CLAIM to believe as have you, Christianity would be extinct.

[Shangori]

Teh, so in current times, the one who wrote the rest of Mark would get a DMCA flag, hm?

Yeah, I hate current copyright laws. Anyway, love this series and you gained a sub

[TruthSurge]

@Shangori yep. Matthew would have been in BIG trouble. So would Luke. And most of the ancient writers I guess. heheh thank ya!  I'm going to try and get started on the next part and see if I can make more progress.

[AthenaSchroedinger]

This complements the works of Bart D. Ehrman very well.

In my humble opinion, you have done an excellent presentation.

Am looking forward to viewing more.

[TruthSurge]

@AthenaSchroedinger I agree. There are really just a few things where I actually disagree with Ehrman. One being that Jesus actually lived. But the next few vids are going to blow some people's minds, I kid you not. I almost never say anything like that but this evidence is so good and so overwhelming, I cannot see how ANY rational person could watch them and walk away believing Mark did not copy Homer.

[markdzima]

I don't think your "fact" that "Matthew and Luke copied Mark verbatum to a large degree and almost always ADDED details but made very few excisions" is correct. The Gospel of Mark is not the least detailed of the 3 synoptic gospels with respect to the story of the exorcism of an epileptic boy (which I'll be doing a video on soon). Just the opposite. The version of the story in Mark (9:14-29) is both longer and more detailed (especially in terms of symptoms described) than (cont'd)

[markdzima]

@markdzima (resumed)

either Matthew (17: 14-20) or Luke (9:37-43).

In his lecture series "Jesus and the Gospels" for The Teaching Company, Prof. Luke Timothy Johnson (Emory University) says (in lecture 13 on Matthew): "Although Matthew consistently shortens Mark's diffuse version of stories, often requiring a third fewer words to tell the same story (compare Matt 8:28-34 and Mark 5:1-20), he increases the length of the overall narrative..."

[TruthSurge]

@markdzima Where Mark has MORE than Matthew and/or Luke would fall under the excising part. Matthew DID remove parts of Mark and for theological reasons. Remember all the voodoo and magic words Jesus used to heal people in Mark? Spitting on their eyes and touching their tongues to heal blind and mute? and saying open sesame? oh, be opened? All that Matthew removed. Easy to see why, yes? Matthew DID embellish Mark quite a bit, also, The overall lengths from Mark to Luke are longer.

[TruthSurge]

@markdzima Stories grow with the telling, they do not shrink. If you want to argue against established phenomena, go argue with a wall. If you think pointing to one or two places where Matthew reduced the details as evidence that he did NOT embellish a LOT of Mark's gospel in Mark's scenes as well as added scenes, that just is illogical. Almost all of Mark is contained inside Matthew's rewrite. He excised quite a bit really but also embellished a lot and added new stuff.

[markdzima]

@TruthSurge

Did you miss the continuation of my comment? Because I showed that I am well aware that Mark is overall shorter. My point was clearly not that Matthew and Luke didn't add to Mark, but that in the synoptic parts, i.e. where they used Mark as a source (or used the same source as Mark), they shorten and cut details. I provided 2 sets of verses examples and a statement from a Professor in the field regarding the consistency of the pattern (quite a lot for a mere YT written comment).

[TruthSurge]

@markdzima at 9:28 in this vid, I show how Matthew added to Marks resurrection verses (16:1-8). He embellished Mark's scene by adding details/extra verbiage that also increased the length of the scene.

And at this pt, without doing a quick study of this between Mark and Matthew, I'd be willing to say that MORE of Mark's scenes were added to by Matthew than shortened. Are you claiming that this is not true? That Matthew almost never added to Mark but removed from Mark?

[TheFunkyTheist]

This is AA72, and I wanna say, I'm enjoying the series....even though I couldn't disagree with some of these ideas more!! But I gotta give credit where credit is due. It's good quality material.

[TruthSurge]

@TheFunkyTheist Yeah, the deal is that when I claim that Mark wrote deliberate fiction it's hard to accept if you have not seen what I have seen. But if you stick with this series, you WILL see some of what I have seen and I will try to make it clear and hopefully convincing just by covering enough that no one can say oh, that's just coincidence. :) thank ya!

[TheFunkyTheist]

@TruthSurge

I look forward to it sir. And I imagine that you're going to present Dr Macdonald's thesis (and arguments). It will be an interesting discussion.

[MARI0LAND]

Interesting video. I wouldn't read too much into the 666 verses though. The division of the text into verses did not happen until the middle ages.

[TruthSurge]

@MARI0LAND it was just a humor thing I threw in. But that's exactly the type of "evidence" a lot of people who do these parallels vids make and claim it is true. I probably should have left it out.

[bizzee1]

Once the story of Jesus began to be written down in the gospels, we see recorded in writing the common practice of the day of embellishing stories as time goes on. It seems reasonable to also think that embellishment to the Jesus story was happening even before the earliest written gospel, Mark. What this looks like is that this 'Jesus thing' is the most epic fish story ever told (and believed). Surely an omnimax God that wants you to believe wouldn't let His book look like a fish story.

[TruthSurge]

@bizzee1 yeah, prob is, it slipped thru the cracks and got taken as history and once they church bought it, they could never return it. just redefine it and apologize and tapdance for the next 1900 years.

[colonelkentucky81]

Wonderful series so far. Thanks so much for this.

[TruthSurge]

@colonelkentucky81 thanks!

[emancoy]

This is very educational for me

thanks truthsurge

[TruthSurge]

@emancoy thanks

[ozmoroid]

A wonderful series. I'm glued to my screen.

[thrillzonevideos]

I am the 777th viewer!

[TheBronzeDog]

Yeah, I'm looking forward to part 4, now. Darn you, sequel hooks! ;)

Normally, I go straight for arguing that eyewitness accounts are unreliable, but going into detail about how the story changes has been working well for the series. Anyone who believes the Bible is unaltered is ignorant of its history, as well as just plain naive.

[JynxsBox]

Can't wait for the next vid~

[pedrohadek]

Great video. I think that the notion of later gospels being essentially fanfiction simply hilarious.

[realbojay]

@TruthSurge

Gogogo, we are waiting for part 4 :)

Can't believe you only got ~600 views so far..

And lol! Few versions later (of Mark's Chinese Gospel Whispers): "The one who doesn't kill his father and mother and his siblings will get raped by Luzifer foreverandeverandever. Don't believe me? You're definitely getting raped by Luzy!! You shall believe this for the unbelievers are idiots (and will totally get raped for eternity!). Btw did i mention that you should better believe this?"

rofl

[TruthSurge]

@realbojay I believe, I believe!!!!!

[Pilotwing64]

Nice music, TruthSurge.

[TempleOfInanna2]

Matthew 28:13 "Say ye, His disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept." No solidier in that day would ever admit to sleeping on the job, it was a capital offense.

[TruthSurge]

@TempleOfInanna2 "Matthew" being Jewish probably didn't know all about Roman affairs during the 30s and 40s and this concept (writing BACK in time) is a common affair in the Bible and introduces anachronisms that pretty much disprove that it was written during the time it describes.

And further, what the fark did Roman guards care about a no-name Jewish guy's tomb? AHHAHAHAHA pure fiction man.

[TempleOfInanna2]

@TruthSurge "Matthew" being Jewish probably didn't know all about Roman affairs during the 30s and 40s and this concept (writing BACK in time). Yeah, much of this stuff seems to written later on, as in the case with the book of Daniel. Daniel contains so much inaccuarate history that there is no way it could have been written by someone living at the time the story took place.

[TruthSurge]

@TempleOfInanna2 true.

[TempleOfInanna2]

You pointed out a few things that I wasn't aware of. Thanks for the video Truth :)

[TruthSurge]

@TempleOfInanna2 thank ya. The next section should be news to most people. I'm hoping to lay it out clearly and in a compelling fashion but really, the evidence doesn't need any help. But I realize I must try to make it interesting so I don't lose some people. But I know by this vid I prob already did. :)

[bonnie43uk]

There have been several studies done over the years that delve into just how much people will believe what they're told by men in authority. I think the resurrection is a good case in point. If you are capable of taking a step back, you can see just how ridiculous it is. But billions of seemingly rational people cant see the wood for the trees.

Great video btw.

[TruthSurge]

@bonnie43uk yep. thanks!

[biggingeryeti]

Lol, the original writer of Mark was such a troll.

[DeletedDelusion]

This is very interesting stuff, what are your sources?

i mean, I hope you as a fellow sceptic of the new testament don't spend your entire life on hovering over the new testament texts, are there any books of biblical scholars who suppoert your conclusions?

(I read Bart D. Ehrmans book "Misquoting jesus" and listened to the audio book "Jesus interupted")

[TruthSurge]

@DeletedDelusion I typed some of them into the description. But yes, the best sources would be the original (not THE original) copies of the documents but then no, I don't have 40 years to study them all so I do rely on the opinions/observations of people who have spend tons of time studying them. I HAVE studied down into some Greek and Hebrew tho. If you have any specific question on a source, let me know but in general, truth is all around. Google search works wonders. :) hehe

[TheD0ded0de]

Seems that the gospels are midrash texts to reflect the christian mystery cults. Theology created the texts and evolving theology and doctrines altered the texts. The gospels were like today's chain letters that are different versions of each other and get altered to suit the audience or evolve as time goes on.

[TruthSurge]

@TheD0ded0de you got it.  The idea that modern Christians love to fling about is that the copyists were anal about copying the mss to the letter. Noooo, that only started to happen in the middle ages. In the beginning, it was a free-for-all and anyone could copy anything and make any changes and pass THEIR copy on and no one would know. It was also a matter of literary bravado. WHO could write a better version? I CAN! Matthew "improved" Mark. Luke "improved" them both. etc.

[ModernDeism]

If Mat, Mark, Luke & John were witnesses of the resurrection, you would think they might mention each other being there as well in "their" writings.

Great work TS - I look forward to the next vid.

[TruthSurge]

@ModernDeism  Yeah, you would think they would have gotten their stories straight. You'd think a LOT of things because their are so many things wrong with the way the 4 gospels DON'T mesh together. A disharmony of the gospels is a great study to do. :)

[judecas13]

very good series, thank you. May I ask you to include your sources in the description? I'd like to produce something similar (and shorter) in my local language. Thank you once more, thumbs up!

[TruthSurge]

@judecas13 I can't list direct sources for each claim but some of the sources I use are google search to various sites, Bart Ehrman books (misquoting Jesus is a good one), Earl Doherty, G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price (the incredible shrinking son of man), Wikipedia articles, online bibles such as blueletterbible (d o t) com, online Codex Sinaiticus, online Septuagint, Greek and Hebrew lexicons such as Strong's online lexicon. I'll put this in the desc too. thx.

[judecas13]

@TruthSurge thank you very much, going to the library.

[myjizzureye]

Very nice.

[TruthSurge]

@myjizzureye thank ya

[meleder]

/we do not even know if mark, mathew, luke or john even wrote the gospels, in fact most reputable historians say they do not know who wrote the gospels.

[TruthSurge]

@meleder Yes, I said that in PART 1 of this series and PART 2 I believe.

[xdassinx]

If I was an ancient undertaker who sold tomb space... And business was slow and I wanted to get a bunch of people into the show room.

I might spread a rumor of someone raising up from the dead and walking off. And put up a big sign "Come, see the place where he lay.. 1 shekel. Half off Special on Tombs. "

[detersgumig]

I gotta say, this series is absolutely awesome!

[TruthSurge]

@detersgumig thank ya!

[TruthSurge]

@detersgumig thank ya!

[craniorectalectomist]

This is amazing stuff. I thought I knew the Bible!

Can't wait to see your ideas on Mark being a work of fiction, I'm guessing popular fiction?

I see it as more of a rehashing of some proportion of Sol Invictus, Amen-Ra and Mithras worship to create a new godhood narrative, kind of like a variation on Judaism the way Mormonism is a variation on Christianity. Happens every 2000 years or so, I guess.

Looking forward to the evidence your provide for your claim. It certainly makes sense.

[craniorectalectomist]

I forgot to include Yahweh in that god mix. Way to forget the most important one...

[TruthSurge]

@craniorectalectomist Yeah, there is no doubt that Christianity is (was i mean) an amalgamation of various beliefs and traditions. Which percentages is the debate I guess. I put much less stock in the Horus = Jesus approaches.

[TruthSurge]

@craniorectalectomist Thanks. Yeah, I spend the next MANY vids covering the evidence for why Mark is a deliberate work of fiction. Hope people don't get bored but I figured I would lay a TON of evidence out instead of just a few samples because I want the case to feel overwhelming. (and it is).

[deemzje]

Another great video.

However, you should drop the 666-verses-in-Mark thing. I think you know that there was no such thing as 'verses' in the autograph, because that was a much later invention.

Oh, and I also think (for good reasons) that 1Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation.

[TruthSurge]

@deemzje You are correct. Verses were added at a later time and that section of the vid was just sort of a quick sidestep into some humor. Nothing more really.

And SHHHHHHHHH! don't blow my whole series by spilling the beans!!!! hahahhaa ;)

[cosmicskydaddy1]

The Lord is my savior so I put my fingers in my ears so I would not hear your heathen video. It's not easy to lick my coffee like a cat. You atheists make me mad!

[TruthSurge]

@cosmicskydaddy1 Well, at least you WATCHED the vid. That's a start! hahahha

[cosmicskydaddy1]

@TruthSurge Excellent video TS.The parts really holds together.I love the 666 reference,lol.

[TruthSurge]

@cosmicskydaddy1 hehe well, I just had to throw it in since w/o the ending it was 666 vs but it was only a little humor. Not saying that's why they added the ending. Certainly not why, IMO.

[TruthSurge]

@cosmicskydaddy1 hehe well, I just had to throw it in since w/o the ending it was 666 vs but it was only a little humor. Not saying that's why they added the ending. Certainly not why, IMO.

[gjsterp]

Excellent !!!

[TruthSurge]

@gjsterp thanks!

[pumpstations]

Well, as the ancient aliens said best: ✈ ♋ 웃 ♦ ≊ ♠ ▲ ∀ Ξ ∞ Π ≉ ≋ Σ ≌ 煵 ╆ ⊉ ⊊

Great series, looking forward to the rest.

[TruthSurge]

@pumpstations yes, I love that saying. I have a poster of it on my bedroom wall. :) thank ya

[SkepticInTraining]

Have you been following the youtuber Xoroaster? If you have not, you really need to go check out some of his recent videos. He, like you, is doing some insightful research into the bible. I would highly recommend watching this video : /watch?v=Dgc02eNsb_Q to get the gist of some of his recent revelations.

[TruthSurge]

@SkepticInTraining Yes, I did watch several of his vids. They seem to lean a bit heavier on the speculation side than mine, I'd say, but I have watched maybe 3 vids so I might not have an accurate picture of the series but it is certainly worth investigating but I am not sold on the link between the zodiac/constellations and the symbols in Revelation like sword, bow, etc. But I'd say he's definitely worth checking out. We've exchanged a few comments.

[JOOGAL1111]

you make a really plausible case but all christians will blow it of as they don't need facts they already know the truth its JEEEESUS !!!!!

[TruthSurge]

@JOOGAL1111 Yep. It's difficult to make a case against something where it involves a lot of little pieces of data and it also involves someone's pet belief they were brainwashed with usually at an early age. But, that doesn't stop me from researching it for my own satisfaction. :)

[adamsblackmore]

truthsurge is one cool guy...his focus i cannot deny...having benefited from his scrutinel eye...we can and will get over this hanus lie...

is it possible that 666...is just a part of the matrix...linked to a bigger story...to help us return to former glory...

i don't want to lose what others have used and abused...

an open mind is sure to find...hidden treasures and hidden pleasures...

peace out space chimp...one love

[TruthSurge]

@adamsblackmore dang, now I know I've hit it big. People writing raps about me. HEHEHEHHE

Thank ya!

[adamsblackmore]

@TruthSurge people??? ha ha...only the humility of a god could perceive such a notion...one love truthsurge

[TheCurmudgen]

You're doing a great job on this.

[TruthSurge]

@TheCurmudgen thanks. I know these can get tedious for viewers because of the length and the amount of stuff there is to look at so I'm trying to keep them as interesting as I can. Who knows? hehe

[Jaybird196]

TS, you continue to amaze :) . I'm loving the attention to detail you're giving this series.

[TruthSurge]

@Jaybird196 thanks!