TO SKEPTICS: Evidence for the Bible--Part 1: Eye Witness

[vjholliday]

EPIC FAIL...LOL

[vjholliday]

Were any of these secular historians convinced enough to convert to christianity? because if they didn't, you have no case. Also, the authors of the gospels are unknown. the original writings do not exist. It is imposible to be say with any accuracy that the these gospel writers were eyewitnesses.

[MrPenfold84]

Give this guy some due credit! It's interesting!

[Xylogeist]

Rofl this guy is a complete idiot XD

[AbsoluteZ3R0]

The Harry Potter series is consistent in its details throughout all 7 books. Harry Potter is real

[ramb0101]

u mad?

[jackinthebox10293847]

You see, the book of the all knowing and loving flying spaghetti monster is TRUE, because i read the damn book about it...god people got to be so ignorant.

[hoboboxerjoe]

Crap, I thumbs-downed him. See, if you thumbs-down, you validate him, because he just clearly sees better than us. If you thumbs-up, that means you see his point, and how great of a teacher he is. His win-win LoLgic is as primitive as it is self-confusing.

[Cmontermini]

Proof of the bible -- IN THE BIBLE!!

Impressive.

[ImACuteGeek]

So you're saying that if it says in the book that the contents are true, therefor it must be so.

You do realize that if you use this mindset with the Bible, you'll also have to use it with the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Odyssey, every ghost and/or alien abduction ever told.... need I go on?

Sorry, but you need more then someone's word to say that something actually happened.

[yackon4game]

lol your an idiot

[qwertypoiu4321]

Exodus 21:17 (KJV):

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

[sirbestnameever]

well if it in a book it must be true

[FarmerBrian57]

I don't know why people like you think you can take "evidence" from what your trying to prove is real. I can say Harry Potter is real and it says so in the books, but that doesn't make it true!

[linkforever92]

untampered with? the cathlic church edited it and chose wat books would be put in. oh and that no contridictions thing if u actualy read it they cant agree on many things like say how di judas die? hanging in a plot of land that he bought or did he die in his bed?

[denChemiker]

Couldn't watch the whole thing, but two things:

1. They were not eye witnesses. About two generations passed before they wrote the book.

2. There are several contradictions regarding the bible. Do a Google search and you can find actual cited evidence.

I knew it was no good from that point on.

[edwardtang1977]

@harpo10 There are video games of Conan and where is Jesus's?

[edwardtang1977]

if you think really really hard and really really deeply...you will find that if you really thought it were true...you wouldn't even be making a video trying to convince anyone

[rjcrbnj]

I think he sounds like a gay, maybe a very repressed closeted gay....

[K33ng]

Cool story bro.

[GRABA85]

answermancri: You made logical error called "idem per idem".

[JayFromEarth]

Thank gawd you're not a criminal defense attorney.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...see? He says he isn't guilty, therefore he is NOT guilty!

I told you so!!!"

[ManicEightBall]

Have you ever read the 4 gospels side-by-side? Try reading them just a little at a time - all 4. Don't go from start to finish, just read enough to compare them and see how they agree (or not).

[SuperAtheist]

you can't use the buybull to prove the buybull!

[chikenshitconformist]

so when do you get time to make videos in a dentist's office?

[Irresponsibleatall]

Hi,

Have you accepted Conan as your

personal Lord and Savior?

[hanbacca]

hell yeah i wouldnt question the almighty conan!

[Bullettube]

"Luke was a doctor" and "he took his education very seriously"? LOL I can't watch the rest of this! 2000 years ago you studied medicine under the tutelage of what today we would call a witch doctor! Please kid, go back to school and study sermonizing on your own and leave the real science to professionals!

[Gplex]

I see you didnt let Paul respond to your video... dEIGWESngdY

[bigalisme]

This vid deserves a whopping "Dee derp dee derp dee tittily tum ta too"

[Stryongo]

I lold the entire way through.

[thewarriorsrok]

the bible says it is a historical book? that proves two things. jack and shit. you need a secondary source there, buckshot.

[g477s]

really funny video.. =p

[darkstarjamie]

religion....and I mean all religion, is nothing but life destroying rubbish. You're a idiot!

[Irrehaare]

You proofed nothing except fact that you know nothing about logic and meaning of word: evidence.

[UpioFox]

You're a dumbass

[burnlaugh]

Is this a parody? It is the most illogical thing I have ever heard which makes me think this is a parody, but if it is, the guy is a really good actor, cause he's not hamming it up at all. He comes off genuine... and actinf genuinely dumb is actually very difficult to pull off well.

[krew666666]

no contradictions huh?? Where did the ascension take place?

Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee

Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)

Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)

John: No ascension

Paul: No ascension

Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12

ARE YOU BLIND???

[UpioFox]

No he isn't blind. Just a fucken illogical moron. "it is because it is" Lmao ditch this bullshit. I could write a book and implement characters claiming to have witnessed it's happening and it would have the same credibility as the bible.

[krew666666]

no contradictions huh???after the resurrerction and appearance to the women , to whom did Jesus first appear?

Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)

Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)

Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)

John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)

Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

[DJLorenzen]

Watch zeitgeist the movie,

video . google . com/videoplay?docid=5216975979­627863972&q=zeitgeist&total=16­28&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=se­arch&plindex=3

[mikebell]

moron.

[tubesusedtobeboring]

Poor guy...

[derrickhayden]

damn,even god would feel sorry for u comming up with this "explanation" for the bible,u christians are letting him down :P

[quebec10000]

Hi; Luke 24;4 Jesus tell people not to fear those who can kill you Vs. Jesus purposely avoids the Jew s who are looking for him, Jesus is a hypocrit here, not good example to his followers. Thank you very much.

[minerdrc]

HI, man.

I am gonna use your logic. I'll take any piece of beletry or historical fiction i.e. form world war 2 and add a very simple comment which states "I saw that happen with my own eyes. I swear." And here comes the tricky part. Would you believe that the book is truth just because that added comment?

[xnightxamex]

1) you cannot use the bible to prove the bible.

2) the reason they don't contradict eachother could be that they were all written by the same person

3) how do you know they weren't tampered with?

4) i just watched a video stating that everything by tacitus(sp?) and josephis(sp?) is invalid. can't put the link cuz youtube's gay, but it's by crosisborg called "Proof of a Real Jesus? Not even close." there's two parts, watch both if you fancy to.

5)

[tangledupinglue]

Read F.F. Bruce, "Canon of Scripture". The other gospels are pretty clearly not written by eyewitnesses, or even in accordance with eyewitnesses. and also read 2 Peter 1:16-21 that is the measure for canon. And Peter is going to be trusted above others as an authority on Jesus.

[tangledupinglue]

Ok fair enough, I may not have th right info on Tyndale and KJV, It doesnt matter I dont read their bibles. But thats beside the point considering some of the earliest most definitive manuscripts on th NT were discovered in th late nineteenth century, Im guessing they werent using them. My point remains: translations are not changes. And they get better at it over time. The originals agree with each other all 5000approx. of th pree 5th Century Greek manuscripts and countless latin ones.

[tangledupinglue]

well considering you just mixed up the Old and New Testaments im not sure its me who needs to look that up. There were only so many greek texts available to the early translators, so Latin vulgate texts needed to be used for some books and to help translate in general due to lack of texts available to the translators. Now due to globalisation, and a better availability of texts and bigger teams translating the bible, rather than small number of people it is easier.

[tangledupinglue]

It is confusing to some that different translations might mean that the bible is changed. But once you'ved studied a second language, and tried to translate anything, you will understand how something unchanged, can have many translations. There is also the fact that early english translations came from the Latin bibles, rather than the greek ones (a double translation).

[TheLoadedQuestion]

[blank stare]

[TheMightyCitizen]

you gotta be jokin' me!

[cjunk351]

'Luke' admits he is not a witness. 'mathew' copies some 600 verses straight from 'Mark'. 'John' is a different type of gospel. Paul doesnt even mention Jesus in any historical setting. 'acts' CLAIMS 500 witnesses (nice round number). Whats more likely Its true, or people believe such nonsense? And they contradict themselves SO MUCH. MAthew copies even the NARATIVE of 'Mark'. :)

'UNTAMPERED WITH FOR THOUSAND OF YEARS'.. hahaha even your theologians will disagree with on that one buddy.

peace

[owheydusoapsk]

As a non-Christian this sounds aimed at fortifying the faith of people who are already Christians. Points your taking for granted are highly controversial and far from considered fact by disinterested scholars,( authorship for one). The Bible claims itself to be credible and you think that's evidence? Who are you aiming this series at?