did the disciples believe him? Did the multitudes that saw him perform miracles and healing believe him? Many saw him raised from the dead. Did they believe Him?
Hail mary full of grace the lord is with you ,blessed are you amongst woman, and blessed is the fruit of your womb ,Jesus.Holy mary mother of God pray for us ,sinnners,now and at the hour of our death.Amen
Remember how Jesus frequently tells stories and that He was with the disciples for three years. Yeah, that's how they knew. He told them. Just like you tell someone a story about your day, so did He tell them what happened. Plus, they saw Him perform miracles so they would believe his words. Wouldn't you believe someone's words if you saw him raise people to life? Yeah. Jesus simply told them what happened in the desert and then they wrote it.
that doesnt prove that he existed.... you only prove that if someone see someone perform miracle, obviously you are going to beleive it since you saw it.
If someone close to me is gone for 40 days and nights, the first question I will ask is where have you been and such. Maybe I wouldn't ask while that person is under stress or what not, I would wait until they were in a good state. Then I would ask what happened. If you want to talk about the story of what happened in the desert you have to understand much more than the literal story itself. You have to be aware of every single aspect of the conditions and understand the wisdom of the bible.
I think the logic of a biblical literalist would be that they believed impossible tales from him because they'd seen him perform impossible deeds. If I were to tell you "I can turn myself into a lion", you'd figure I was stoned, barking mad, a total liar, or some combo, BUT if you'd just seen me turn a poodle into a crocodile and you knew you weren't hallucinating, you'd probably believe me.
PS- The words for "40" & "many" are often interchangeable in ancient texts, both in Hebrew and Greek.
yeah good points, im an atheist but even i understand that the curran is the direct word, so how can christians think of themselves so "highly" and so "holy", its total bullshit
Actually, Christianity itself is based on direct revelations to Paul obtained during interviews with his risen Christ. So whether the Jesus of the gospels (all of which follow Paul's letters both chronologically and doctrinally) had an encounter with some demon or not is of lesser consequence than Paul's own self proclaimed heavenly visitations.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nice projecting there Crutchology, and I must add that your attack is probably one of the weaker ones on the Bible I have seen, almost as poor as the idol of yours Pat Condell, but yet unlike him you're young you still have a chance that old humour less fart do not have and that is actually do some serious study. Clearly that old closet marxist Pat never did.
Later you ol' chav, I'll pop in and listen to some more childish rants another day.
blueblue1891 your a fucking retard. I'm not even going to bother to reason with you. I'll just insult you instead. EAT MY FUCKING SHIT YOU STUPID CHRISTFAG.
You make an interesting point regarding stories in the gospels that place Jesus somewhere the gospel writers are not. My first question is this: could Jesus have related those encounters to his disciples? Secondly, is it likely that Jesus would have lied about those encounters? Clutchology offers a false dichotomy, saying that either there was an eyewitness or God told the people that it happened. Isn't the simplest answer that Jesus was there and told the story to the people he trusted?
That was the exact point I was making. If Jesus was the only person there, the information only existed in his mind, no one elses. The only way this could have been passed on to anyone else would be through the account of Jesus himself.
Then we come to the question of was his account reliable? In this case, I find it very unlikely.
Why is it very unlikely that Jesus' account would be reliable? He would either have to be delusional or have a reason to lie about it. 40 days of fasting does not necessarily make a person delusional, so we can't necessarily assume that to be the case. And I don't see why Jesus would lie about something like this. The Jesus I read about in the gospels was a truth teller, if anything - he spoke the truth and it got him into plenty of trouble.
No. I doubt he was lying. But 40 days in a desert fasting makes the probability of his very death likely, that he might suffer a psychological hallucination at some point is most certainly a plausible claim.
Now put this into context, he had an experience that was much like an hallucination. Which is more likely, hallucination or these things he experienced actually happening?
I'm not saying they did not happen, just trying to get you to see the justification behind my scepticism.
You didn't need to use that story of Jesus in the desert to invoke your logic. What about Genesis chapter one and the creation of the universe? Mankind wasn't even created yet.
Here's your answer: when you write an essay with a pen, who wrote the essay? You, or the pen? Of course, you did - you just used the pen to write what you wanted to say. In the same manner, God used men to give us His word. Did the men write it? No, God did - He just used the men to physically do the writing.
I hate that analogy. It assumes man as an inanimate object, and completely ignores the variations, revisions, omissions, contexts etc. that all took place through the compilation of the Bible.
To say the book was man-made with the deity as inspiration would be a perfectly legitimate claim. To say is was actively written by the deity, through whatever means, seems unlikely indeed.
If God-as-inspiration is a legitimate claim, why is God-as-writer unlikely? If you allow for the existence of God, all sorts of things become possible, no matter how unlikely they may seem. Just a point of logic. I do think that the first scenario fits the evidence best, however. That is, a dynamic writing process involving both God and humans.
Simply because human writers with god as inspiration account for all things like variations, omissions, different styles, context (like the OT being written before Herodotus and the concept of literary history), etc a whole lot better than the concept God as writer does.
Simply put, those things would be expected with god-as-inspiration. A sort of human means of understanding. God-as-writer has to come up with an explanation for all of these things.
only believe half of what u see, and none of what u hear and i'd have to add personally, none of what u read...if ur not there in person how can u possibly declare that it happened?...that's where faith comes in...if u sense in ur heart that the bible is valid and true, then so be it...u can't deny what's in ur heart...it's so simple, but people will argue all these meaningless points about it that never lead anywhere...true knowledge is accepting the fact that u don't know
people hallucinate when they're in solitary confinement, out in a desert for 40 days (yreah right lol) with little to eat or drink is going to make the best of us insane for a time
another thing about witness accounts, its actually the LEAST reliable evidence in a modern court of law. Witnesses make mistakes, and many people who were thrown in prison based on witness testimony were later cleared when better forensics proved their innocence.
Just because an eyewitness account isn't as reliable as a video recording doesn't mean that it is completely false. As for the differentiating accounts, the differences are minor and, in the opinion of most scholars, adds to the credibility because it shows that they weren't all copying one source. Just because people see things from their own perspective doesn't mean what they are seeing isn't real. My question is: do they all agree on the most important points? In the gospels, they do.
People are satifisfied to believe that the writing was inspired by God. That makes sense for them. Because their God can do anything, everything in the bible makes sense. It's a twisted circular reasoning.
Good points made. It's not even remotely likely that this story is true at all. I was going to look at a bible because I was curious to read the story, but I don't know which book it's in or if it's in the old or new testament. Just curious to read the story for myself and to see the holes in it. :)
blessed are those who believe but have not seen
Outboundz 7 months ago
did the disciples believe him? Did the multitudes that saw him perform miracles and healing believe him? Many saw him raised from the dead. Did they believe Him?
helpmetony 1 year ago
Hail mary full of grace the lord is with you ,blessed are you amongst woman, and blessed is the fruit of your womb ,Jesus.Holy mary mother of God pray for us ,sinnners,now and at the hour of our death.Amen
systemearth 1 year ago
Brits: What kind of accent does this guy have? What part of UK? I like it. It's easy for a yank to understand.
nauort23 3 years ago
Remember how Jesus frequently tells stories and that He was with the disciples for three years. Yeah, that's how they knew. He told them. Just like you tell someone a story about your day, so did He tell them what happened. Plus, they saw Him perform miracles so they would believe his words. Wouldn't you believe someone's words if you saw him raise people to life? Yeah. Jesus simply told them what happened in the desert and then they wrote it.
mewfilms 3 years ago
that doesnt prove that he existed.... you only prove that if someone see someone perform miracle, obviously you are going to beleive it since you saw it.
Th0usandMaster 2 years ago
If someone close to me is gone for 40 days and nights, the first question I will ask is where have you been and such. Maybe I wouldn't ask while that person is under stress or what not, I would wait until they were in a good state. Then I would ask what happened. If you want to talk about the story of what happened in the desert you have to understand much more than the literal story itself. You have to be aware of every single aspect of the conditions and understand the wisdom of the bible.
deftonesfanatf 3 years ago
I think the logic of a biblical literalist would be that they believed impossible tales from him because they'd seen him perform impossible deeds. If I were to tell you "I can turn myself into a lion", you'd figure I was stoned, barking mad, a total liar, or some combo, BUT if you'd just seen me turn a poodle into a crocodile and you knew you weren't hallucinating, you'd probably believe me.
PS- The words for "40" & "many" are often interchangeable in ancient texts, both in Hebrew and Greek.
Sampiro 3 years ago
Interesting. From that logic, all or most religions, claims must be true, or believable.
override4 3 years ago
yeah good points, im an atheist but even i understand that the curran is the direct word, so how can christians think of themselves so "highly" and so "holy", its total bullshit
5james5 3 years ago
Actually, Christianity itself is based on direct revelations to Paul obtained during interviews with his risen Christ. So whether the Jesus of the gospels (all of which follow Paul's letters both chronologically and doctrinally) had an encounter with some demon or not is of lesser consequence than Paul's own self proclaimed heavenly visitations.
Lohitaksha 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nice projecting there Crutchology, and I must add that your attack is probably one of the weaker ones on the Bible I have seen, almost as poor as the idol of yours Pat Condell, but yet unlike him you're young you still have a chance that old humour less fart do not have and that is actually do some serious study. Clearly that old closet marxist Pat never did.
Later you ol' chav, I'll pop in and listen to some more childish rants another day.
blueblue1891 3 years ago
Right, I take it you actually have nothing to contribute to the topic then?
Clutchology 3 years ago
blueblue1891 your a fucking retard. I'm not even going to bother to reason with you. I'll just insult you instead. EAT MY FUCKING SHIT YOU STUPID CHRISTFAG.
NlGGERKING 3 years ago 3
Woo woo!! nice body, haha
fumala420 3 years ago 8
@fumala and you just know he has a pink hole! how sweet is that huh? I KNOW! (sighs)
clutchologie 3 years ago
Actually, it's brown and hairy and covered in faeces.
Clutchology 3 years ago
lmao
fumala420 3 years ago
hot
stovokor1 3 years ago 4
mmm he's hot.
ashowenz 3 years ago 4
Jesus wasn't the only one in the desert, so was the Devil. So you have a true witness God Himself and the Devil, a false witness.
Uaz31 3 years ago
You make an interesting point regarding stories in the gospels that place Jesus somewhere the gospel writers are not. My first question is this: could Jesus have related those encounters to his disciples? Secondly, is it likely that Jesus would have lied about those encounters? Clutchology offers a false dichotomy, saying that either there was an eyewitness or God told the people that it happened. Isn't the simplest answer that Jesus was there and told the story to the people he trusted?
cbass46 3 years ago
That was the exact point I was making. If Jesus was the only person there, the information only existed in his mind, no one elses. The only way this could have been passed on to anyone else would be through the account of Jesus himself.
Then we come to the question of was his account reliable? In this case, I find it very unlikely.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Why is it very unlikely that Jesus' account would be reliable? He would either have to be delusional or have a reason to lie about it. 40 days of fasting does not necessarily make a person delusional, so we can't necessarily assume that to be the case. And I don't see why Jesus would lie about something like this. The Jesus I read about in the gospels was a truth teller, if anything - he spoke the truth and it got him into plenty of trouble.
cbass46 3 years ago
No. I doubt he was lying. But 40 days in a desert fasting makes the probability of his very death likely, that he might suffer a psychological hallucination at some point is most certainly a plausible claim.
Now put this into context, he had an experience that was much like an hallucination. Which is more likely, hallucination or these things he experienced actually happening?
I'm not saying they did not happen, just trying to get you to see the justification behind my scepticism.
Clutchology 3 years ago
You didn't need to use that story of Jesus in the desert to invoke your logic. What about Genesis chapter one and the creation of the universe? Mankind wasn't even created yet.
Here's your answer: when you write an essay with a pen, who wrote the essay? You, or the pen? Of course, you did - you just used the pen to write what you wanted to say. In the same manner, God used men to give us His word. Did the men write it? No, God did - He just used the men to physically do the writing.
LightRogue2008 3 years ago
I hate that analogy. It assumes man as an inanimate object, and completely ignores the variations, revisions, omissions, contexts etc. that all took place through the compilation of the Bible.
To say the book was man-made with the deity as inspiration would be a perfectly legitimate claim. To say is was actively written by the deity, through whatever means, seems unlikely indeed.
Clutchology 3 years ago
If God-as-inspiration is a legitimate claim, why is God-as-writer unlikely? If you allow for the existence of God, all sorts of things become possible, no matter how unlikely they may seem. Just a point of logic. I do think that the first scenario fits the evidence best, however. That is, a dynamic writing process involving both God and humans.
cbass46 3 years ago
Simply because human writers with god as inspiration account for all things like variations, omissions, different styles, context (like the OT being written before Herodotus and the concept of literary history), etc a whole lot better than the concept God as writer does.
Simply put, those things would be expected with god-as-inspiration. A sort of human means of understanding. God-as-writer has to come up with an explanation for all of these things.
Clutchology 3 years ago
only believe half of what u see, and none of what u hear and i'd have to add personally, none of what u read...if ur not there in person how can u possibly declare that it happened?...that's where faith comes in...if u sense in ur heart that the bible is valid and true, then so be it...u can't deny what's in ur heart...it's so simple, but people will argue all these meaningless points about it that never lead anywhere...true knowledge is accepting the fact that u don't know
itzahazylife 3 years ago
ok jesus in the desert..... ok fuck it I can't listen to a hot, shirtless guy.. I hate when emotion wins against intellect.
ahfna 3 years ago 3
people hallucinate when they're in solitary confinement, out in a desert for 40 days (yreah right lol) with little to eat or drink is going to make the best of us insane for a time
mattfox06 3 years ago
another thing about witness accounts, its actually the LEAST reliable evidence in a modern court of law. Witnesses make mistakes, and many people who were thrown in prison based on witness testimony were later cleared when better forensics proved their innocence.
wakeangel2001 3 years ago
Especially when you have 4 supposed witnesses that all give differentiating accounts.
Clutchology 3 years ago
After the death sentence has been carried out.
ThisBoyTV 3 years ago
Just because an eyewitness account isn't as reliable as a video recording doesn't mean that it is completely false. As for the differentiating accounts, the differences are minor and, in the opinion of most scholars, adds to the credibility because it shows that they weren't all copying one source. Just because people see things from their own perspective doesn't mean what they are seeing isn't real. My question is: do they all agree on the most important points? In the gospels, they do.
cbass46 3 years ago
Is that a Carmello Anthony poster behind you? GO NUGGETS!
stinkyplan 3 years ago
Yep. My favourite player in the NBA, on my favourite team in the NBA.
*looks proud*
Clutchology 3 years ago
so milky white and cute
irtlotion 3 years ago 3
hhmm on behalf of all gay men we thank you for making this one with your shirt off :-)
(sorry had to type it):-)
steev75 4 years ago 5
you ain't lyin!
fumala420 3 years ago
You had me at shirtless :P
ninomiyac 4 years ago 5
LMAO! I knew it would get me extra fan support ;)
Clutchology 4 years ago
People are satifisfied to believe that the writing was inspired by God. That makes sense for them. Because their God can do anything, everything in the bible makes sense. It's a twisted circular reasoning.
Brainmold 4 years ago
Excellent use of what the religious fear the most, critical thinking skills.
tribidemp 4 years ago
Shit... did I just say that?
Riva1986 4 years ago
Yes, yes you did.
Clutchology 4 years ago
And male ;)
Riva1986 4 years ago
shirtless videos now? lol
FeurFenix 4 years ago 3
I have to keep my female subscribers happy from time to time ;)
Clutchology 4 years ago
LOL, SHIRTLESS VIDEOS FTW, Savagemikey kinda joked about how many naked videos i did(i kinda took them down though, lol).
johnmicstring 4 years ago
Yes you do. :)
Kopfschuss99 4 years ago
Yet another hole for the theists to fill with FAITH^tm. LOL! Great point.
nonreligionist 4 years ago
Wow very interesting points! 5*****
notes1980 4 years ago
Good points made. It's not even remotely likely that this story is true at all. I was going to look at a bible because I was curious to read the story, but I don't know which book it's in or if it's in the old or new testament. Just curious to read the story for myself and to see the holes in it. :)
HaleyMary 4 years ago
If I remember the correct chronological order, it should be relatively near the beginning of any of the 4 gospel accounts.
Clutchology 4 years ago
Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13.
cbass46 3 years ago