Hi Peter, interesting video, ive heard all of this before, you say your not very knowlegeable of jesus as a historical personage, so how can you argue this point if you havent studied him theologically and historicaly?
There is no secular evidence, agreed, so why not put a case for what could have been, rather than debunking the obvious!!
MartinJWillett you should really do some more biblical research because it''s quite obvious to me after reading your string of comments that you're basing all of your theories and questions upon rage and anger. Also you have to realize that atheism offers no ethical guidelines as Christianity does with Jesus Christ whether he be real or fictional.
Ethical guidelines? What are they? He does not say that rape is wrong, or slavery, or racism, or economic exploitation or bigotry. He says that divorce is wrong, unless one of the women (not the man) is unfaithful.
Who needs ethical guidelines from an old book? I have never had to consult a book to know whether something was moral or not, I just look at the consequences of the action and put myself in the shoes of others. No books or myths are required.
Mark 14:67When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.
"You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said.
68But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entryway.
The bible predicted that you would deny the existence of Jesus. I did not reinterpret that for this video. I am just smart enough to give the people who are obviously more qualified a better understanding of the scriptures that they studies for centuries.
it's really hard to watch tooltime's videos when he gets so excited to spew out his ideas that he looks around the room and says "UH, UH" really loud and obnoxiously every few words or so
Your entire case is based off the fact of a lack of eye witness accounts from Historians Thucydides wrote the Peloponnesian War from reports he heard For a historian to see all of these things would require an omnicient ability
An eyewitness report Xenophon you completely reject despite thats what youre looking for oddly enough You seem to want it both ways that when the docs are in your favor their legit I have decided I wont be responding since you have voiced your one sided opinionalready
If the events in question were wars or the processions of emperors we would not be unduly worried by the lack of corroborative evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not a single word was written about Jesus until a decade after his ascension, by ANYBODY, even Christians. There were lots of literate people around in that time, plenty of dogs that didn't bark.
He acknowledges the existence of Christ when he calls his followers fools for following him. Also, if you want to say that wars are a different story due to some magical source of information read Dio's account of the battle of Carrhae, then read Plutarchs. Any differences there?
Wouldn't you be a fool for following a fictional character, or is that sensible behaviour?
There is no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus. The only evidence suggests a small number of ill-behaved people were following a leader who they claimed had died within their lifetime - something which is uncontroversial.
If you object to the ill-behaved bit note that nobody was mentioning the Chrestians for running soup kitchens or healing the sick, just for being cultish.
so now you're positive that Tacitus and Sutonius have nothing to do with him? Not sure since you've been dancing around that point the entire time. Anyway, I'm not saying that I'm relying completely on this but it is easy to believe that it is possible that during the Christian Prosecutions histories related to Jesus would have been lost.
that Jesus was crucified. 30 plus years after is a max cap, Matthew? Who are these people that believe Josephus is a false document.
Tacitus refers to the Christus... who could that be?
Paul is repeating tradition... he was there for it.
The Pharisees were the educated class and since Jesus was not reviving the Kingdom of David as they were looking for. Also, Jesus was a threat to upheaval of their entire tradition.
Tacitus refers to a group of troublemakers in Rome not directly to any events in Palestine. If the reference is genuine (there is evidence of forgery, changing Chrestianos into Christianos) it proves the existence of Christians, not Christ.
Paul (Saul) was indeed in Jerusalem at the time of the alleged events and yet only "met" Jesus after his ascension.
Josephus is widely acknowledged to have been tampered with in the parts touching upon Jesus and Josephus wasn't a twinkle when Jesus died.
Suetonius mentions Chrestus in his history of the emperor Claudius, Chrestus being a ringleader responsible for troublemaking by Jews around 49/50 CE which led to the Jews being expelled from Rome. Why the Greek name Chrestus rather than Jesus? Or indeed Emmanuel, how many names has this guy not got? How many Jewish zombies were there in Rome at this time? More than in Jerusalem on Good Friday, which nobody else noticed.
I don't see the problem with a Roman Equite using a greek name. Greek was considered a novelty and rather prestigious thus Suetonius learned it while studying in Rome.
Even if this was the case, this Chrestus couldn't possibly be Jesus as the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius took place way after Jesus' supposed death.
So using another name in another language is not unusual. Right. So a different language, a different vowel and mixing up a name and a title is perfectly OK for you to make a positive identification of who the account is about, because you know what you want it to be about.
The man used a Greek word, which is actually a Greek male given name, which is similar to the Greek word for saviour. And he is as you say not Greek. And from this you infer he must have been referring to the followers of YOUR wannabe Saviour. And that because there were followers this is proof that the person YOU BELIEVE they claim to have been following must have been be real and is also not dead but living in your internal organs.
And you don't even see the contortions in this stretch.
thats not true at all, Isn't Alessandro the translation of italian for the english name Alexander and visa versa. People are capable of translateing things, I still am not following that logic.
Of course you're not following logic, you are within the orbital pull of your core dogma, you would be hard pressed to follow any logic at all. You must believe that story so it has to be true and therefore it is true. Chrestus is not Christ, even if the word was Christ rather than the Greek given name Chrestus it would not imply your Jesus Christ or be evidence that he existed as a man. The tales are about people claiming to be following Chrestus not Jesus the risen son of the Jewish god.
Now you're saying my beliefs make me stupid so I can't be right. The world is filled with multiple languages with translations that run parallel with one another. Theres nothing strange with someone that writes a history in Greek to use a Greek name. By that logic if a Spanish Bible says Cristo instead of Christ it HAS to be a different person.
I am pointing out something that most people are too polite to tell the religious. Faith does not help anybody find the truth, that is why to a scientist using faith is regarded as gross professional misconduct. Doubt, question, verify, examine other possibilities, evaluate fairly, these are sound academic methods. Not faith.
Maybe a non-Greek using the Greek man's name Chrestus refers to a man named Chrestus. Can't you even consider possibility that it isn't actually an error?
Who else could Chrestus reference? How about Chrestus? Chrestus was a common Latin given NAME, from the Greek meaning good. It MIGHT have been a mishearing of the Greek WORD Christus which means oily (also by extension anointed with oil). Romans did not have the same associations with anointing with oil as did the Jews. But there is also the simpler possibility that it was just this guy Chrestus. There has never been a monopoly on the claim to be the Jewish messiah.
It's getting ridiculous now? What about the virgin birth, the unnoticed slaughter of the innocents, the talking snake and a man getting sacrificed to himself to placate his own wrath for the sins of the yet to be born? I'd say it's been ridiculous for a very long time and it's high time we grew up and put it all where it belongs, in the pre-scientific infancy of our species.
I'm referring to you coming up with half baked excuses against the historical backgrounds. Also, I agree with those in the fact that the bible uses stories, such as the cases referenced above, to tell stories to provide morals and shouldn't be taken word for word. Any Theologian would agree with me on that.
If the crucifixion is just a story then Jesus is just a poor philosopher. If he isn't God made flesh then he's just this guy with a bunch of weird moral tales which would get him laughed at when compared to real and competent moral philosophers. There are hardly any people who genuinely follow the absurd and immoral teachings attributed to him. European civilization has developed enormously DESPITE not because of the alleged teachings of Jesus.
haha hey now thats not what I said, plus I find it hard to believe that any major faith has any major teachings that could seriously be considered immoral. And given you still haven't responded to the historical argument I'm taking that as a concession
You cannot be serious. You don't think that any "major faith" has immoral teachings? Perhaps we should meet up and we can discuss a fair price for my daughter, do you need a slave? She's a virgin, you could have her, if the price is right.
The pacifism in Jainism is immoral. Slavery is immoral. Genocide to create Hebrew lebensraum is immoral. So is turning the other cheek and splitting up families to follow Christ. So is the entire notion of vicarious redemption, sacrifice and original sin.
When I say major faith I say Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to bring up the motiviation of the nazi party is out of place completely. Which of those 3 modern day religions support slavery. The historical passage refers to his followers in the City of Rome. Thats taken out of context as well. Also... what is so terrible about Pacifism?
All the Abrahamic faiths support slavery in their texts. Of course people who have become civilized through non-scriptural sources of ethics have distanced themselves from these awkward facts.
Pacifism is evil. Do you know Gandhi's strategy for the Jews in Nazi Germany? Mass protest suicide. I'm sure Hitler would have been positively delighted. If somebody wants to take my life, rights or property they should expect a fight. Pacifists rely on others to protect them, bastards.
Wrong. The Gandhi plan was suicide as protest. That is thoroughly immoral and it would have achieved nothing. Gandhi's strategies only worked because his enemy was civilized and gentlemanly, they would not work against people who didn't care what other people thought. Pacifism would not work against invading aliens coming to eat you and it would not protect your country from fascist invasion. I am not going to just give my freedom up to the first tyrant who wants to take it.
I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.
That is Ghandis position No matter what owe no alleigance
Basically what he was saying is that he would rather have the citizens of these nations preserve themselves peacefully but just a little longer instead of being butchered with the exceuse of their open rebellions. To say pacifism is evil when madness and insanity is in the equation is unfair as well. This is a rare variable that is not present in THE MAJORITY of cases. Also please send me the flier for the mass suicide flier because Ghandi made these comments after the war. Ghandi was in Prison
What has broadcasting got to do with it? That was all he had to say on the matter. It does not matter when he said it or who he said it to, that was the strategy he suggested and it stinks. Pacifism has nothing to offer except surrender to tyrants, I am not going to let the freedoms my people have fought for be taken by the first bastard with the balls to ask for them.
You will find looking up Gandhi easier if you spell his name right.
I am no warmonger I just know that if you refuse to fight under any circumstances you have all the defences of a vegetable. I am not aggressive but I am prepared to use violence in defence rather than merely surrender. If you are seeing that as immoral it is your moral sensibilities which have been damaged by irrational dogma. With the possible exception of Costa Rica no Christian nation takes its defence strategy from the words of Jesus the cheek-turning Appeaser.
theres also an inherent difference between stateing and supporting. True the texts state slavery since they had slaves, however please point out the line advertiseing slavery as the 'best idea ever!!!!'
Example; I am debateing with an Athiest. Does not mean I am supporting you does it?
How hard would it have been for Jesus or Paul to condemn slavery if they thought it was immoral? No harder than it would have been to condemn the barbaric practice of sacrificing doves and animals in the temple. It didn't happen. Jesus condemned entrepreneurship but defended killing innocent animals in pathetic magical rituals.
Paul wrote about Christians keeping slaves but he did not say they should not do it. Open your eyes and read the Bible, our secular morals are much better today.
I actually have read the bible, and if you have any historical knowledge whatsoever you would realize that slaves are no more important to the story than anything else. Why? When you live in a time slaves are the commonplace for centuries there is nothing considered immoral. The only thing that MIGHT be considered back then was the the condition of treatment of slaves. You cannot say that if you lived then you would say that its immoral since you have not lived in the same society
In fact the only reason you find Slavery immoral is due to your societal predispositions. Novels such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and documents such as the Emancipation Proclomation (from my society specifically) provides a nation with no slaves. If there is none of something it sends the message hey this must not be best for us. That is the ideal of pacifism to establish a mainstay of a lack of war between all nations
Stop being dramatic. Slavery was a commonplace so even for a radical like Jesus it would be laughable to even bring it up. As for my misspeling of Gandhi, I'm sorry but I wrote those last comments very very quickly and I was hopeing you'd stick to legitmate arguements instead of thse childish distractions. Gandhi made these comments after the war in essentially a drama-like way. You obviously have no knowledge about the comments since you didn't know it was said after the war and that it was a
hyperbole. To 'Die instead of dieing at the hands of an enemy' is a common theme that is essentially harmless to anyone that reads it for what it is unlike you
Once again the novel Crime and Punishment involves a murder, does that mean it supports it? The mere mention of slaves has absolutely no bearing in the modern world. Jehovah's witnesses, in this case, take every word of the bible as law. Do they keep slaves? Do Congregationalists keep slaves? No because there is not one word in the bible supporting slavery, merely mentioning it as, well, people had slaves.
and uh given you've dropped almost every one of your points after persisted pressure I'll take all of those as concessions. However, next time you can just end it in a practical manner instead of playing up the drama as you exit out the back door.
I've stopped arguing in small boxes with a child of smaller mind. You have not won anything. You have demonstrated that you are not worth my time. Anybody can take irrational beliefs to their grave believing they have won the argument simply because they have not been silenced.
If you think you have won take a bow. See if anybody applauds.
hahahaha small boxes? You mean the comment box? Yep you're right you should go debate a real theologian and then really get a verbal beating if, in reality, you are as high and mighty as you claim. This entire time you've used half baked arguments, blatant lies, and historical falsehoods to prove your point from Ghandi's suicide party to the Slaves R Us section of the bible.
Reread lebensraum. It states that Germany needs land resources so they should be taken from the east, replace the Polish and Russians with upper class Germany, I am not seeing Christ even mentioned
Haven't you got eyes to see and ears to hear? Parables man, allegories. God told the Hebrews to exterminate the people living on the land he "gave" them, including the original builders of Jerusalem, the Jebusites. Exterminating lesser races (the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites) to make living space for the chosen/master race. Lebensraum. It is evil whether ordered by gods or by dictators. Evil sky pixie, evil.
Lebensraum is still just an ideology of a mad man and has nothing to do with the morality of religion. A genocide or extermination is a gross exageration of the events that took place. Israel was a new nation on the brink of destruction and needed to solidify its position. Politics and Strategy. The only which God directly 'gave' was canaan. They were barred from entry and threatened so the had to attack
and since you haven't bothered responding to my point of Recognition of a messiah leading 'fools' as the documents reference I'll take that as a concession for the time being
Also, the original bible was in Greek. The language of the common people was Greek. The Language spoke was Greek so I'm not sure where this catastrophic error lies in the use of the Greek form of OUR word for Christ
Sandhedran write about? They were Jews of antiquity and would certainly not write about anything not having to do with themselves as they were very isolationist. Especially something they did not recognize as true.
To say that Herodotus, the father of history, is completely embellished is ridiculous. Xenophon is recognized widely as a true history. The embellishments come in smaller details, not the big picture like you said, Nero fiddled as Rome burned. Yet all sources that comment say..
Also, it's an absolute joke to ask Ancient Historians to come up with eye witness accounts being written down and that historians weren't there.
Did Plutarch see everyone he ever wrote about? Was he there on the Carrhae campaign? He heard from a group of people; the defeated Roman army and paraphrased it.
We're lucky to have some of Cicero's letters. All of Crassus' in response are lost. Therefore you cannot definitively prove that Pilote never sent a letter
Are you saying that all historians during the time of Christ are untruthworthy, or just those that talk about Christian things? If this is the case how can we know for xure what took place 2000 years ago, or 200 years ago for that matter. What standard to you use to judge if history is correct or not. Sound to me to figure this out one would have to be unbiased, and let the evidence take where it leads, and not automatically start with the premis that "X" did not happen, or happen the way I want
I am not saying that are untrust worth, just that they do not count as INDEPENDENT evidence, becuase they source is more then likely CHRISTIANITY itself.
paraphrasing what Christians said about Jesus is by NO MEANS the same as being an independent witness. it on proves that they were aware of the story of Jesus.
So this means that there reporting of the story make it not true? If this is the case then a lot of famous historians might not be believed, because quite a few historians record the past, and they are not called into question.
So if it is not independent, then there is the possiability of it being true. So the resurrection accounts could indeed have happened. But from your video you are saying "no way no how", but thinking what you really have to say is "we do not knoww for sure"
I think you are ignoring the fact that there IS NO EVIDENCE, WordPlanter. If you are going to argue for it, you really need to revamp your argument.
If you are trying to convince yourself, just do what you do for the entire concept of religion. Unquestioningly believe it even though there are no real forms of evidence supporting it.
No Evidence huh? Alright, do what you need to do. I am not going to debate you because you clearly have made your mind up that you cannot learn. Must be the after effect from the transition from Monkey to human.
Yet to say that so many Christians had essentially the same exact story right off the bat says something Also given that the gospels were written separately and werent compiled and the text is essentially the same Im not looking to argue with you since you obviously are not going to change your opinion since you took the time to post a video.
Also all the historians that do "paraphrase it" leave it at that None of them choose to dismiss it as a farce which they easily could have done
That sounds like an excuse NOT to support your argument with evidence. Don't want to debate? Five comments aren't debating? You're just making an excuse because you haven't any.
And by the way. You cannot make up your mind that you cannot learn, only that you won't. If you cannot, then it isn't because you've made up your mind. There's a difference. Of course, you're the kind of person to confuse those, which is why you make stupid arguments. I'm not doing anything I need to.
He did exist, but he wasn't crucified or resurrected, neither was he born on December 25th. Po(if I'm saying his name right), who created Christianity, and his followers of this religion stole these ideas from the Pagan religion, and he stole ideas from the Egyption myth.
Also, having documents written 30 to 60 years after Jesus's life is actually closer than most of the dated documents written of many historical figure's lives we study today. That gives a little bit more credit to the Gospels when you can compare 30yrs after Jesus's death as oppose to 500yrs after Alexander the Great's death. Remember it's just 30 yrs after his death, memory at the time was far greater than ours today due to no printing press.
do you see any religions based on the life of Alexander the great? really, we have sufficient evidence to know that assuming he lived an did at least some of the things he was said to is a better explanation then the opposite. also, those 500 year old text are based on older ones we no longer posses.
Religion from Alexander? No, but we can look at other religions and see that they don't even come close to the accuracy as Christianity does. I agree it doesn't prove Jesus, I'm only trying to say it gives a little more creditability to the possibility that Christianity is true. It's just a starting point or maybe even a foundation for an arguement.
"don't even come close to the accuracy as Christianity" you really need to do some ACTUAL research into other religions. few of them even make historical claims in the way you are thinking. no historical argument is show that angles and demons are flying around fighting over souls (no I am not being literal).
"research into other religions. few of them even make historical claims in the way you are thinking."
Yes, to an extent. And some of them are based off of Judeo-Christianity so their evidence will be very similar. But like I said before, my arguement for the archeological evidence is not to prove Christianity but to at last establish a foundation for an arguement that the gospels weren't just writting pure fantasy.
"again, the setting of a story can be real, and the details made up entirely or highly exaggerated"
But if that is so for Christianity, then you have Christians at the time being massacred for simply not denouncing something simply made up. Who would give up there lives for something they knew wasn't true? It's not like they were gaining anything from it.
"Who would give up there lives for something they knew wasn't true?" most, if not all of the Christians who died in the manner you speak never KNEW what they believed to be actually true or false. they obtained their beliefs second hand. given that, we actually know what was going through the minds of many early Christian martyrs and it was not all that different then what went thought the minds of the 9-11 hijackers: Heaven!
The difference between the Islamic extremeists and Christians is that Christians don't get to go to heaven just for giving up their lives, whether for killing others or just giving up and saying okay kill me so I can go to heaven. Life was a gift from God that must cherrished and we must strive to live until we are no longer able to physically. So once again the question remains, what were the Christians gaining by being slaughtered for something they believe to be false?
No, i mena we literally hav the letters of the Christians saying how they were happy to go to their death because they wanted to be rid of this life to gain heaven. you say Christianity says life is a gift? last time I read the Gospels, Jesus made it sound more like a burden we should be happy to get rid of.
I won't deny that there were Christians at the time who were "...saying how they were happy to go to their death because they wanted to be rid of this life to gain heaven." The problem though, is the bible tells us that heaven is not achieved that way. Now there were many who were willing to give up their lives due to the fact that the only other option was to denounce Jesus and they refused to do that. Now, heaven is achieved that way.
"last time I read the Gospels, Jesus made it sound more like a burden we should be happy to get rid of."
No, we suck. Not Life. There's a difference. He was teaching how we suck. We need to live on to teach others the truth who have not recieved it yet. Not, "Oh well I know the truth now so I don't need this life anymore. Who cares about the others, I'm going to go die now to get into heaven". We need to help improve ourselves and others. This life is our test. Our only test.
"No, we suck." what a misanthropic little religion you have. the notion of an all powerful being that has nothing better to do then to create beings and them make then jump through his hopes sounds simply absurd.
God created man to be perfect and to live a perfect and happy life, but he also gave us one greatest gifts, Freewill. Because a true and loving relationship with God cannot be forced. If he create us to not screw up then will automatically love him without the ability to do otherwise and that right there would basically be rape. So with freewill we have the option to do good and to do evil, and many times evil looks so good. which is why people suck. We made us suck, not God.
"you are thinking of Josephus. Tacitus was not even born when Jesus was alive"
I never said Tacitus born during the time of Jesus's life. I said he was alive when the witnesses of Jesus were still alive. Sorry if there was any confusion.
"would have put up a fit if the accounts were altered." we have evidence to suggest that exactly that happened."
That the accounts were altered and Christians called them out on it or that the accounts were just altered and no one noticed.
because you are talking about a context in which a story is being passed orally from person A to B to C to D, etc in a society where fidelity to the exact details of the original story was not a major priority. the disciples simply could not be everywhere at once making sure joe-shumo in smerna was telling the story correctly to tom-soandso.
"Disciples simply could not be everywhere at once making sure joe-shumo in smerna was telling the story correctly to tom-soandso"
No but the Disciples and followers (someone) would have eventually read it or found out saying "What are doing? That's not what happened"
That bring up a point, The disciples were far away from each other when they wrote the Gospels and could not tell what the other one was writing and yet the gospels are all very similar (Gospel of John is possibly an exeption)
We can only go by the evidence provided for us. And so far, even though there may not (in your opinion) be enough sufficient evidence for Jesus, we have yet to find any archeological evidence that contradicts the gospels accounts of Jesus.
archeological evidence is not even the issue at hand. there is no archeological evidence to contradict Islam, Mormonism, the Iliad, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are we to just go ahead and assume them to be true as well.
Not one bit of archeological evidence supports Mormonism or Hindusim where as all the archeological evidence does support christianity with nothing to disprove it. I personally can't even consider Buddhism a religion, it doesn't even believe in a God, it's more like a philosophy. Since Islam is based off Judeo-Christianity it will almost equal to Christians evidence so scriptures is the way to go to disprove it.
archeological evidence does not prove much to begin with. I personally refer to it as the Troy-fallacy. saying that troy really existed, and that the Iliad is true (Greek gods, Helen, apple of discord and all) are two VERY different things. sames goes for the bible. provide a certain place exists of some broad detail happened does little to prove the actual content of the bible.
Well, if we look at Joseph Smith's gospel the Book of Mormons, we see absolutely no accuracy to anything pertained in it. Not one city, civilization, name, event have been discovered to have ever existed, dates are completely inaccurate. Whereas almost every city, civilization, name, product, structure, event, figure, etc in the gospels of the bible have been discovered to have exited. It gives a little bit of credit to the gospels than just being a bunch of made up fairytales.
I could write a wonderful story for you about places i have lived or been to that would be amazingly accurate in the ways you describe, and yet be totally fictional otherwise. I should also point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Okay, but with your wonderful story you will need to add supernatural elements and be able to convince a mass of people, not just one group of people but many groups, classes, societies, religions, etc that your story were true. That's an extremely difficult task to pull off.
in the modern world it is. in the ancient world, new cults sprung up all the time. the number and variety of people Christianity convinced is irrelevant. to say that it is is to make and Ad populum argument.
New cults spring up all the time today, you'd still be facing the same challenge. In fact may even be easier today because people today are not so hardcore into their beliefs and everyone in keeping their options open for the truth, whereas then they were hardcore into their faith and you had to be careful when sharing a different faith because you were likely to be stoned to death.
you have some rather strange ideas about the ancient world. I will admit that Christianity may be a special case. that said, one would encounter NO such trouble introducing a pagan cult into a pagan culture. the emphasis on orthodoxy (what one believes) is a peculiarity of Christianity. cults like Isis and Mirthras has no trouble spreading through ancient Rome.
I agree, introducing a pagan cult into a pagan culture would not be troublesome, many people don't have a problem with intertwining faiths but to take a completely different religon and telling everyone else that this belief is the only belief to go by and any other belief contrary to that will condemn you to hell would cause some problems.
We have many secular documents refering to the existence of Jesus. Falvius Josephus is one, which you have already commented on, but I have to disagree with your comment about him, and then we have The first-century Roman Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger, The Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, etc. Now you seem to have a problem with contemporary witnesses. The gospels are the contemporary witnesses.
all the people you mention wrote about Jesus far enough after the fact that we have to seriously consider how they came about their information. if it is by way of Christians, in which case all they are doing is passing alone stories they were told which makes for a really bad source of evidence.
if person A invents a character and tells the story to person B AS IF that character was real, then when person B tells it to person C, the fact that the character is fictional is lost, and B and C are both then under the misapprehension that the character in fact exists. what reason do we have to suppose that ANY of the people you mentioned had RELIABLE information about Jesus.
The gospels are the witnesses of Jesus. Your somewhat telephone theory doesn't exactly apply since the gospels are the original source to Jesus that we may refer back to, so it doesn't matter what was said from A to B to C.
"The gospels are the witnesses of Jesus." that's speculation, the evidence for which is actually rather underwhelming. also, even IF that is the case, if the gospels or the stories of Christians are (insert secular author here)'s source, then WHY count him as further evidence of Jesus? THAT was my point!
my point is that saying someone like Tacitus counts as INDEPENDENT evidence for Jesus is flawed if his information is DEPENDENT on the gospels or Christian stories.
I'm not able to go too deep into Tacitus because I haven't studied too much about him, but I understand that he is believed to be an accurate historian.
"accurate historian" accuracy is a relative term he COULD ONLY BE as accurate as the sources he had available to him. if those sources were Christians or the gospels or someone repeating hear-say about Christians of the gospels, then pointing to Tacitus as an INDEPENDENT source is simply folly. all we would then be saying is that "Tacitus knew THE CHRISTIAN STORY OF Jesus" and not "Tacitus had independent information about Jesus". the former is a redundancy, the later would be actually useful.
Tacitus was documenting in the first century just a little more than 30 years after Jesus's life. this bring up two points. 1- the stories weren't able to be passed down very far at all before being able to be altered. 2- People who actually witnessed Jesus were still alive and would have put up a fit if the accounts were altered.
you are thinking of Josephus. Tacitus was not even born when Jesus was alive, and the Annals was written in 117 AD. that is over 80 year after Jesus' death.
"would have put up a fit if the accounts were altered." we have evidence to suggest that exactly that happened. also, it would be more unusual that the stories were not altered then that they were, at least in the short run.
Maybe they got their info from previous documents that were lost, who knows. Flavius Josephus wasn't too far off considering he mentions that he had met "James the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ". That kinda says something.
Let me fix a previous message, I didn't mean the "That's speculation" response but the "Pure Speculation" response is what I completely agree with. Sorry about that.
"I am not tryign to argue that Jesus did not exist"
Awesome, I was a little confused as to where you stood on that.
"that passage of Josephus may not mean what you think it does."
I've read what he said about Jesus and it seems pretty clear what he was trying to say.
there is a controversy over that passage. some scholars thing that the line "who was called Christ" is a later interpolation, and James and Jesus were common names at that time and place.
But there are other passages about Jesus that Flavius mentions that it makes it very clear what Jesus he was refering to. Also if Christians did the interpolation then they did a pretty bad job in doing so. Much like the claim that the bible has been tampered with throughout history, if so, then the Corrupted Catholics at the time who would have done it, did a terrible job in tampering with it.
Also there was a war between the Roman empire and the Jews where many many many documents were destroyed and so only a few things could be salvaged. ALso, it would make sense that the documents were written after his death because his biggest miracle was the ressurection which created the biggest commotion about him and it could have only happened after he died. Before that the Roman Empire couldn't care less about Jesus, they eventually cared because the Jews were pissed off.
I simply don't by the story that Jesus was a wonder worker and NO ONE, save for a few zealots seemed to have stood up and took notice. not only that, but the gospels say that even many who witnessed his miracles did not believe him. I mean REALLY! when was the last time you saw someone cure a blind person or raise a dead person?
the first documented accounts of Alexander the Great were not written until 500 years later after his death/ Would you say that Alexander the Great, an important historical figure, is false?
yes, of course! the ancient world was far less concerned (generally speaking) with the literal true of every detail of the story, then will the over all message. embellishment was not discouraged the way it is today.
history uses what is called an "inference to the best explanation".
Watch a video at following link and listen what THE MOST QUALIFIED EXPERT & THE TOP MOST SCHOLAR AND RESEARCHER of present time says on the matter of Crucifixion
tinyurl d o t com/5kt9ew
This video will move the ground under the feet of blind fanatics. When u finish watching this video, pls click on right-upper side of screen on "more from user" to watch another two videos that will shake ur innerself
Tacitus said that Christus started Christianity.Unless you can prove that there was some other Christ crucified and started Christianity.
//Josephus was proven to be a forgery for centuries. //
You actually have to tell that too all the Josephan scholars since Louis Feldman did a statistical study and found that most scholars think it was at least partially authentic.
I believe you do try and seek our truth, so in that vain I would ask that you read the book called "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Again I am not trying to change your opinion, I would just like you to have all the facts. Blessings to you.
Actually, I did read the first few chapters and could not finish it because A) It was like all other apologetics I have read, and B) it simply had several glaring flaws due to bias. I laughed when he asked the bible scholar how we can be sure who wrote the gospels and the guy basically says because the church fathers said so "and they had no reason to lie", when in fact they had EVERY reason to lie.
I thank you for your time, and I'll leave it at that. I am not one to belabor a point over and over, I see you have already formed your full opinion, so any other discussion would be fruitless. As I have said I only wanted to be sure you had all the facts, and you seem fairly confident that you do, so I will not be a thorn in your side. For me I will just pray for you, I do not wish that anyone should suffer the second death. Thanks again for your time.
I honestly wonder how people like you can worship a god you believe on one hand to be loving, and yet also believe he casts people into hell. In my opinion, your god sound cruel, petty, and vindictive, and yet you wonder why I am unable to believe in him.
There are many so called "Christians" who promote false teachings which lead people like yourself to conclude as you did. Well known "Christian Scholars" don't have insight and mislead many as well. The popular apologist today have no insight. For starters, they need to understand the meaning and translations of Sheol, Hades, and Hell. None refer to a fiery place of torment. One of the biggest falsehoods. God is loving and would never and has never inspired any writer to give this impression.
Jesus clearly said that it was better to cut off you hand/foot/eye then be cast into hell with them. Mark 9:43 and 45 describe hell as "fire that never shall be quenched". Luke 16:23 implies that hell is a place of torment. There are several references made to "Hell fire", and in revelations, the "second death" PastorArtKlemme is when all will be cast into the lake of fire. So, you're clearly wrong.
Mark:9- Gehenna is an actual place where garbage and corpse were pitched into. The bodies of those pitched were dead, lifeless. Gehenna and Hades et al. are two very distinct places, but are used as a metaphor to get the point. First you need to know the difference, second you need to know the application. "Third, you need to know the difference between: Hades/ Gehenna/ Second death. IfHell is a literalplace of fire then you're apt to make the same mistake.
Well then "used as a metaphor" for what exactly? Are you attempting to say that there is no hell as is commonly thought of and understood, but there is some other place, the metaphor for which is much like hell as most people think of it? what exactly are you trying to say?
Sheol=grave, Hades=grave, Hell=grave. Death and Hades were thrown in the lake of fire.Rev20:14 Meaning, death and the grave will be no more. The lake of fire means the total non existence of such occurrence or place. Death would be swallowed up forever, meaning everlasting life. Ask yourself, How could Hell be thrown into Hell? Literal Gehenna was an actual place where all refuse, animal,criminals were tossed. It was a constant furnace where all matter would be eventually non existent...contin
Look up Cornelius Tacitus.
Curveball 1 year ago
Fucking Christian vote bots.
hyuugaamida 1 year ago
Hi Peter, interesting video, ive heard all of this before, you say your not very knowlegeable of jesus as a historical personage, so how can you argue this point if you havent studied him theologically and historicaly?
There is no secular evidence, agreed, so why not put a case for what could have been, rather than debunking the obvious!!
crissman1971 1 year ago
MartinJWillett you should really do some more biblical research because it''s quite obvious to me after reading your string of comments that you're basing all of your theories and questions upon rage and anger. Also you have to realize that atheism offers no ethical guidelines as Christianity does with Jesus Christ whether he be real or fictional.
footballkid976 2 years ago
Ethical guidelines? What are they? He does not say that rape is wrong, or slavery, or racism, or economic exploitation or bigotry. He says that divorce is wrong, unless one of the women (not the man) is unfaithful.
Who needs ethical guidelines from an old book? I have never had to consult a book to know whether something was moral or not, I just look at the consequences of the action and put myself in the shoes of others. No books or myths are required.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Since you mentioned Josephus and Tacitus, there is another interesting point. Neither of them mentioned the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus.
The fact that the Sanhedrin trial in the NT contradicts the rules of a Jewish trial is another piece of evidence against the NT reliability.
DahStranger 2 years ago
Mark 14:67When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.
"You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said.
68But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entryway.
The bible predicted that you would deny the existence of Jesus. I did not reinterpret that for this video. I am just smart enough to give the people who are obviously more qualified a better understanding of the scriptures that they studies for centuries.
DahStranger 2 years ago
it's really hard to watch tooltime's videos when he gets so excited to spew out his ideas that he looks around the room and says "UH, UH" really loud and obnoxiously every few words or so
jemerson85 2 years ago 2
you're totally right!
fucking christians try to take over the world!
ewwup 2 years ago
I agree with you, but your argument is hard to follow.
studystrike 2 years ago
Your entire case is based off the fact of a lack of eye witness accounts from Historians Thucydides wrote the Peloponnesian War from reports he heard For a historian to see all of these things would require an omnicient ability
An eyewitness report Xenophon you completely reject despite thats what youre looking for oddly enough You seem to want it both ways that when the docs are in your favor their legit I have decided I wont be responding since you have voiced your one sided opinionalready
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
If the events in question were wars or the processions of emperors we would not be unduly worried by the lack of corroborative evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not a single word was written about Jesus until a decade after his ascension, by ANYBODY, even Christians. There were lots of literate people around in that time, plenty of dogs that didn't bark.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
He acknowledges the existence of Christ when he calls his followers fools for following him. Also, if you want to say that wars are a different story due to some magical source of information read Dio's account of the battle of Carrhae, then read Plutarchs. Any differences there?
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Wouldn't you be a fool for following a fictional character, or is that sensible behaviour?
There is no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus. The only evidence suggests a small number of ill-behaved people were following a leader who they claimed had died within their lifetime - something which is uncontroversial.
If you object to the ill-behaved bit note that nobody was mentioning the Chrestians for running soup kitchens or healing the sick, just for being cultish.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
so now you're positive that Tacitus and Sutonius have nothing to do with him? Not sure since you've been dancing around that point the entire time. Anyway, I'm not saying that I'm relying completely on this but it is easy to believe that it is possible that during the Christian Prosecutions histories related to Jesus would have been lost.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
It's easy to believe all sorts of strange things if you really want to because you think that believing in them makes you a better person.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
that Jesus was crucified. 30 plus years after is a max cap, Matthew? Who are these people that believe Josephus is a false document.
Tacitus refers to the Christus... who could that be?
Paul is repeating tradition... he was there for it.
The Pharisees were the educated class and since Jesus was not reviving the Kingdom of David as they were looking for. Also, Jesus was a threat to upheaval of their entire tradition.
I haven't heard your last argument anywhere.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Peter**
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Tacitus refers to a group of troublemakers in Rome not directly to any events in Palestine. If the reference is genuine (there is evidence of forgery, changing Chrestianos into Christianos) it proves the existence of Christians, not Christ.
Paul (Saul) was indeed in Jerusalem at the time of the alleged events and yet only "met" Jesus after his ascension.
Josephus is widely acknowledged to have been tampered with in the parts touching upon Jesus and Josephus wasn't a twinkle when Jesus died.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
He makes a direct reference to the Christus, mocking him in a satirical manner and the fools that follow him in Rome.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Suetonius mentions Chrestus in his history of the emperor Claudius, Chrestus being a ringleader responsible for troublemaking by Jews around 49/50 CE which led to the Jews being expelled from Rome. Why the Greek name Chrestus rather than Jesus? Or indeed Emmanuel, how many names has this guy not got? How many Jewish zombies were there in Rome at this time? More than in Jerusalem on Good Friday, which nobody else noticed.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
I don't see the problem with a Roman Equite using a greek name. Greek was considered a novelty and rather prestigious thus Suetonius learned it while studying in Rome.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Even if this was the case, this Chrestus couldn't possibly be Jesus as the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius took place way after Jesus' supposed death.
colonelkentucky81 2 years ago
Have you even read the passage?
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Which one?
colonelkentucky81 2 years ago
So using another name in another language is not unusual. Right. So a different language, a different vowel and mixing up a name and a title is perfectly OK for you to make a positive identification of who the account is about, because you know what you want it to be about.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
I'm not following that argument at all... people use different languages... so?
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
The man used a Greek word, which is actually a Greek male given name, which is similar to the Greek word for saviour. And he is as you say not Greek. And from this you infer he must have been referring to the followers of YOUR wannabe Saviour. And that because there were followers this is proof that the person YOU BELIEVE they claim to have been following must have been be real and is also not dead but living in your internal organs.
And you don't even see the contortions in this stretch.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
thats not true at all, Isn't Alessandro the translation of italian for the english name Alexander and visa versa. People are capable of translateing things, I still am not following that logic.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Of course you're not following logic, you are within the orbital pull of your core dogma, you would be hard pressed to follow any logic at all. You must believe that story so it has to be true and therefore it is true. Chrestus is not Christ, even if the word was Christ rather than the Greek given name Chrestus it would not imply your Jesus Christ or be evidence that he existed as a man. The tales are about people claiming to be following Chrestus not Jesus the risen son of the Jewish god.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Now you're saying my beliefs make me stupid so I can't be right. The world is filled with multiple languages with translations that run parallel with one another. Theres nothing strange with someone that writes a history in Greek to use a Greek name. By that logic if a Spanish Bible says Cristo instead of Christ it HAS to be a different person.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
I am pointing out something that most people are too polite to tell the religious. Faith does not help anybody find the truth, that is why to a scientist using faith is regarded as gross professional misconduct. Doubt, question, verify, examine other possibilities, evaluate fairly, these are sound academic methods. Not faith.
Maybe a non-Greek using the Greek man's name Chrestus refers to a man named Chrestus. Can't you even consider possibility that it isn't actually an error?
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
But in the Context of the historical references to Chrestus and his followers... I mean who else could that reference.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Who else could Chrestus reference? How about Chrestus? Chrestus was a common Latin given NAME, from the Greek meaning good. It MIGHT have been a mishearing of the Greek WORD Christus which means oily (also by extension anointed with oil). Romans did not have the same associations with anointing with oil as did the Jews. But there is also the simpler possibility that it was just this guy Chrestus. There has never been a monopoly on the claim to be the Jewish messiah.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
ok now this is getting ridiculous. Sure there were people claiming to be messiahs but how many were recognized by Rome.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
It's getting ridiculous now? What about the virgin birth, the unnoticed slaughter of the innocents, the talking snake and a man getting sacrificed to himself to placate his own wrath for the sins of the yet to be born? I'd say it's been ridiculous for a very long time and it's high time we grew up and put it all where it belongs, in the pre-scientific infancy of our species.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
I'm referring to you coming up with half baked excuses against the historical backgrounds. Also, I agree with those in the fact that the bible uses stories, such as the cases referenced above, to tell stories to provide morals and shouldn't be taken word for word. Any Theologian would agree with me on that.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
If the crucifixion is just a story then Jesus is just a poor philosopher. If he isn't God made flesh then he's just this guy with a bunch of weird moral tales which would get him laughed at when compared to real and competent moral philosophers. There are hardly any people who genuinely follow the absurd and immoral teachings attributed to him. European civilization has developed enormously DESPITE not because of the alleged teachings of Jesus.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
haha hey now thats not what I said, plus I find it hard to believe that any major faith has any major teachings that could seriously be considered immoral. And given you still haven't responded to the historical argument I'm taking that as a concession
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
You cannot be serious. You don't think that any "major faith" has immoral teachings? Perhaps we should meet up and we can discuss a fair price for my daughter, do you need a slave? She's a virgin, you could have her, if the price is right.
The pacifism in Jainism is immoral. Slavery is immoral. Genocide to create Hebrew lebensraum is immoral. So is turning the other cheek and splitting up families to follow Christ. So is the entire notion of vicarious redemption, sacrifice and original sin.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
When I say major faith I say Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to bring up the motiviation of the nazi party is out of place completely. Which of those 3 modern day religions support slavery. The historical passage refers to his followers in the City of Rome. Thats taken out of context as well. Also... what is so terrible about Pacifism?
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
All the Abrahamic faiths support slavery in their texts. Of course people who have become civilized through non-scriptural sources of ethics have distanced themselves from these awkward facts.
Pacifism is evil. Do you know Gandhi's strategy for the Jews in Nazi Germany? Mass protest suicide. I'm sure Hitler would have been positively delighted. If somebody wants to take my life, rights or property they should expect a fight. Pacifists rely on others to protect them, bastards.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Slavery was commonplace of the time which is why I said MODERN so its melodramatic to offer up your daughter.
Definition of Pacifism
opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.
Sounds scary!
Once again out of context. Suicide only if captured by Hitler's troops or to prevent dieing by their hands
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Wrong. The Gandhi plan was suicide as protest. That is thoroughly immoral and it would have achieved nothing. Gandhi's strategies only worked because his enemy was civilized and gentlemanly, they would not work against people who didn't care what other people thought. Pacifism would not work against invading aliens coming to eat you and it would not protect your country from fascist invasion. I am not going to just give my freedom up to the first tyrant who wants to take it.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.
That is Ghandis position No matter what owe no alleigance
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Basically what he was saying is that he would rather have the citizens of these nations preserve themselves peacefully but just a little longer instead of being butchered with the exceuse of their open rebellions. To say pacifism is evil when madness and insanity is in the equation is unfair as well. This is a rare variable that is not present in THE MAJORITY of cases. Also please send me the flier for the mass suicide flier because Ghandi made these comments after the war. Ghandi was in Prison
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
from 1940 to 1944. In 1944 he was released due to malaria. Hmm so when exactly did he broadcast his plan again?
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
What has broadcasting got to do with it? That was all he had to say on the matter. It does not matter when he said it or who he said it to, that was the strategy he suggested and it stinks. Pacifism has nothing to offer except surrender to tyrants, I am not going to let the freedoms my people have fought for be taken by the first bastard with the balls to ask for them.
You will find looking up Gandhi easier if you spell his name right.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
also you implied that Gandhi was was trying to employ his 'strategy' as you put it thats what broadcasting has to do with it
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Just reading your last comment it leads me to question your morality. You would rather kill you are saying even if there are peaceful alternatives?
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
I am no warmonger I just know that if you refuse to fight under any circumstances you have all the defences of a vegetable. I am not aggressive but I am prepared to use violence in defence rather than merely surrender. If you are seeing that as immoral it is your moral sensibilities which have been damaged by irrational dogma. With the possible exception of Costa Rica no Christian nation takes its defence strategy from the words of Jesus the cheek-turning Appeaser.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
theres also an inherent difference between stateing and supporting. True the texts state slavery since they had slaves, however please point out the line advertiseing slavery as the 'best idea ever!!!!'
Example; I am debateing with an Athiest. Does not mean I am supporting you does it?
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
How hard would it have been for Jesus or Paul to condemn slavery if they thought it was immoral? No harder than it would have been to condemn the barbaric practice of sacrificing doves and animals in the temple. It didn't happen. Jesus condemned entrepreneurship but defended killing innocent animals in pathetic magical rituals.
Paul wrote about Christians keeping slaves but he did not say they should not do it. Open your eyes and read the Bible, our secular morals are much better today.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
I actually have read the bible, and if you have any historical knowledge whatsoever you would realize that slaves are no more important to the story than anything else. Why? When you live in a time slaves are the commonplace for centuries there is nothing considered immoral. The only thing that MIGHT be considered back then was the the condition of treatment of slaves. You cannot say that if you lived then you would say that its immoral since you have not lived in the same society
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
In fact the only reason you find Slavery immoral is due to your societal predispositions. Novels such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and documents such as the Emancipation Proclomation (from my society specifically) provides a nation with no slaves. If there is none of something it sends the message hey this must not be best for us. That is the ideal of pacifism to establish a mainstay of a lack of war between all nations
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
The only reason you are defending slavery now is that you have been forced to by your allegiance to the dogma beaten into your ancestors.
Take a step back and look at yourself. Remember this day. This was the day you defended slavery because you want to believe in magic.
There is a choice you know, you don't have to be a monster.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Stop being dramatic. Slavery was a commonplace so even for a radical like Jesus it would be laughable to even bring it up. As for my misspeling of Gandhi, I'm sorry but I wrote those last comments very very quickly and I was hopeing you'd stick to legitmate arguements instead of thse childish distractions. Gandhi made these comments after the war in essentially a drama-like way. You obviously have no knowledge about the comments since you didn't know it was said after the war and that it was a
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
hyperbole. To 'Die instead of dieing at the hands of an enemy' is a common theme that is essentially harmless to anyone that reads it for what it is unlike you
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Once again the novel Crime and Punishment involves a murder, does that mean it supports it? The mere mention of slaves has absolutely no bearing in the modern world. Jehovah's witnesses, in this case, take every word of the bible as law. Do they keep slaves? Do Congregationalists keep slaves? No because there is not one word in the bible supporting slavery, merely mentioning it as, well, people had slaves.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
and I guess your lack of any response results in a concession. It was an interesting debate.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
I don't debate with monsters.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
bahahaha nice out ;)
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
and uh given you've dropped almost every one of your points after persisted pressure I'll take all of those as concessions. However, next time you can just end it in a practical manner instead of playing up the drama as you exit out the back door.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
I've stopped arguing in small boxes with a child of smaller mind. You have not won anything. You have demonstrated that you are not worth my time. Anybody can take irrational beliefs to their grave believing they have won the argument simply because they have not been silenced.
If you think you have won take a bow. See if anybody applauds.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
hahahaha small boxes? You mean the comment box? Yep you're right you should go debate a real theologian and then really get a verbal beating if, in reality, you are as high and mighty as you claim. This entire time you've used half baked arguments, blatant lies, and historical falsehoods to prove your point from Ghandi's suicide party to the Slaves R Us section of the bible.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
I take it you don't hear any applause either.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Copy and pasteing this to my friends and shareing a good laugh is all the applause I need hahaha.
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Reread lebensraum. It states that Germany needs land resources so they should be taken from the east, replace the Polish and Russians with upper class Germany, I am not seeing Christ even mentioned
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Haven't you got eyes to see and ears to hear? Parables man, allegories. God told the Hebrews to exterminate the people living on the land he "gave" them, including the original builders of Jerusalem, the Jebusites. Exterminating lesser races (the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites) to make living space for the chosen/master race. Lebensraum. It is evil whether ordered by gods or by dictators. Evil sky pixie, evil.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Lebensraum is still just an ideology of a mad man and has nothing to do with the morality of religion. A genocide or extermination is a gross exageration of the events that took place. Israel was a new nation on the brink of destruction and needed to solidify its position. Politics and Strategy. The only which God directly 'gave' was canaan. They were barred from entry and threatened so the had to attack
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
haha I mean come on man you're an Athiest Missionary and I'm a 15 year old high school student, you should be able to do better than this
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
and since you haven't bothered responding to my point of Recognition of a messiah leading 'fools' as the documents reference I'll take that as a concession for the time being
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
If there was a leader of foolish Jews being a nuisance in Rome it would not be Jesus Christ, would it? More likely a guy named Chrestus.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Also, the original bible was in Greek. The language of the common people was Greek. The Language spoke was Greek so I'm not sure where this catastrophic error lies in the use of the Greek form of OUR word for Christ
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Sandhedran write about? They were Jews of antiquity and would certainly not write about anything not having to do with themselves as they were very isolationist. Especially something they did not recognize as true.
To say that Herodotus, the father of history, is completely embellished is ridiculous. Xenophon is recognized widely as a true history. The embellishments come in smaller details, not the big picture like you said, Nero fiddled as Rome burned. Yet all sources that comment say..
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
Also, it's an absolute joke to ask Ancient Historians to come up with eye witness accounts being written down and that historians weren't there.
Did Plutarch see everyone he ever wrote about? Was he there on the Carrhae campaign? He heard from a group of people; the defeated Roman army and paraphrased it.
We're lucky to have some of Cicero's letters. All of Crassus' in response are lost. Therefore you cannot definitively prove that Pilote never sent a letter
What documentation did ...
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
You look like a caveman.
Bassist700 2 years ago
Yes there is.! Several greek writers of the time did infact do discuss the existance of a historical jeasus.
I'm not a bibe thumper at all. This is just another view.
youseeityoudont 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hallucination01 2 years ago
Are you saying that all historians during the time of Christ are untruthworthy, or just those that talk about Christian things? If this is the case how can we know for xure what took place 2000 years ago, or 200 years ago for that matter. What standard to you use to judge if history is correct or not. Sound to me to figure this out one would have to be unbiased, and let the evidence take where it leads, and not automatically start with the premis that "X" did not happen, or happen the way I want
WordPlanter 2 years ago
I am not saying that are untrust worth, just that they do not count as INDEPENDENT evidence, becuase they source is more then likely CHRISTIANITY itself.
paraphrasing what Christians said about Jesus is by NO MEANS the same as being an independent witness. it on proves that they were aware of the story of Jesus.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
So this means that there reporting of the story make it not true? If this is the case then a lot of famous historians might not be believed, because quite a few historians record the past, and they are not called into question.
WordPlanter 2 years ago
I did not say not true, I said not independent. there is a major difference.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
So if it is not independent, then there is the possiability of it being true. So the resurrection accounts could indeed have happened. But from your video you are saying "no way no how", but thinking what you really have to say is "we do not knoww for sure"
WordPlanter 2 years ago
I never said that the res account could not have happened, only that there is no clearly independent evidence for it
tooltime9901 2 years ago
so the resurrection could have happened then!
WordPlanter 2 years ago
I think you are ignoring the fact that there IS NO EVIDENCE, WordPlanter. If you are going to argue for it, you really need to revamp your argument.
If you are trying to convince yourself, just do what you do for the entire concept of religion. Unquestioningly believe it even though there are no real forms of evidence supporting it.
BfeoAdmin 2 years ago
No Evidence huh? Alright, do what you need to do. I am not going to debate you because you clearly have made your mind up that you cannot learn. Must be the after effect from the transition from Monkey to human.
WordPlanter 2 years ago
No it couldent happen. not possible.
cherbine888 2 years ago
Yet to say that so many Christians had essentially the same exact story right off the bat says something Also given that the gospels were written separately and werent compiled and the text is essentially the same Im not looking to argue with you since you obviously are not going to change your opinion since you took the time to post a video.
Also all the historians that do "paraphrase it" leave it at that None of them choose to dismiss it as a farce which they easily could have done
hardrockstrat 2 years ago
That sounds like an excuse NOT to support your argument with evidence. Don't want to debate? Five comments aren't debating? You're just making an excuse because you haven't any.
And by the way. You cannot make up your mind that you cannot learn, only that you won't. If you cannot, then it isn't because you've made up your mind. There's a difference. Of course, you're the kind of person to confuse those, which is why you make stupid arguments. I'm not doing anything I need to.
BfeoAdmin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
have you seen any william lane craig debates
its astonishing our people regard him so highly .
a polished debater,but perfectly delusional.
hitchens "lost" the recent debate with him.
is anyone able to come forward and humiliate him.
keep up the good work
talicohen 2 years ago
He did exist, but he wasn't crucified or resurrected, neither was he born on December 25th. Po(if I'm saying his name right), who created Christianity, and his followers of this religion stole these ideas from the Pagan religion, and he stole ideas from the Egyption myth.
BlackTokyo21 2 years ago
(continued)
Also, having documents written 30 to 60 years after Jesus's life is actually closer than most of the dated documents written of many historical figure's lives we study today. That gives a little bit more credit to the Gospels when you can compare 30yrs after Jesus's death as oppose to 500yrs after Alexander the Great's death. Remember it's just 30 yrs after his death, memory at the time was far greater than ours today due to no printing press.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
do you see any religions based on the life of Alexander the great? really, we have sufficient evidence to know that assuming he lived an did at least some of the things he was said to is a better explanation then the opposite. also, those 500 year old text are based on older ones we no longer posses.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Religion from Alexander? No, but we can look at other religions and see that they don't even come close to the accuracy as Christianity does. I agree it doesn't prove Jesus, I'm only trying to say it gives a little more creditability to the possibility that Christianity is true. It's just a starting point or maybe even a foundation for an arguement.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
"don't even come close to the accuracy as Christianity" you really need to do some ACTUAL research into other religions. few of them even make historical claims in the way you are thinking. no historical argument is show that angles and demons are flying around fighting over souls (no I am not being literal).
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"research into other religions. few of them even make historical claims in the way you are thinking."
Yes, to an extent. And some of them are based off of Judeo-Christianity so their evidence will be very similar. But like I said before, my arguement for the archeological evidence is not to prove Christianity but to at last establish a foundation for an arguement that the gospels weren't just writting pure fantasy.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
again, the setting of a story can be real, and the details made up entirely or highly exaggerated.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"again, the setting of a story can be real, and the details made up entirely or highly exaggerated"
But if that is so for Christianity, then you have Christians at the time being massacred for simply not denouncing something simply made up. Who would give up there lives for something they knew wasn't true? It's not like they were gaining anything from it.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
"Who would give up there lives for something they knew wasn't true?" most, if not all of the Christians who died in the manner you speak never KNEW what they believed to be actually true or false. they obtained their beliefs second hand. given that, we actually know what was going through the minds of many early Christian martyrs and it was not all that different then what went thought the minds of the 9-11 hijackers: Heaven!
tooltime9901 3 years ago
The difference between the Islamic extremeists and Christians is that Christians don't get to go to heaven just for giving up their lives, whether for killing others or just giving up and saying okay kill me so I can go to heaven. Life was a gift from God that must cherrished and we must strive to live until we are no longer able to physically. So once again the question remains, what were the Christians gaining by being slaughtered for something they believe to be false?
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
No, i mena we literally hav the letters of the Christians saying how they were happy to go to their death because they wanted to be rid of this life to gain heaven. you say Christianity says life is a gift? last time I read the Gospels, Jesus made it sound more like a burden we should be happy to get rid of.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
I won't deny that there were Christians at the time who were "...saying how they were happy to go to their death because they wanted to be rid of this life to gain heaven." The problem though, is the bible tells us that heaven is not achieved that way. Now there were many who were willing to give up their lives due to the fact that the only other option was to denounce Jesus and they refused to do that. Now, heaven is achieved that way.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
the people we are talking about are one and the same.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"last time I read the Gospels, Jesus made it sound more like a burden we should be happy to get rid of."
No, we suck. Not Life. There's a difference. He was teaching how we suck. We need to live on to teach others the truth who have not recieved it yet. Not, "Oh well I know the truth now so I don't need this life anymore. Who cares about the others, I'm going to go die now to get into heaven". We need to help improve ourselves and others. This life is our test. Our only test.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
"No, we suck." what a misanthropic little religion you have. the notion of an all powerful being that has nothing better to do then to create beings and them make then jump through his hopes sounds simply absurd.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
God created man to be perfect and to live a perfect and happy life, but he also gave us one greatest gifts, Freewill. Because a true and loving relationship with God cannot be forced. If he create us to not screw up then will automatically love him without the ability to do otherwise and that right there would basically be rape. So with freewill we have the option to do good and to do evil, and many times evil looks so good. which is why people suck. We made us suck, not God.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
"you are thinking of Josephus. Tacitus was not even born when Jesus was alive"
I never said Tacitus born during the time of Jesus's life. I said he was alive when the witnesses of Jesus were still alive. Sorry if there was any confusion.
"would have put up a fit if the accounts were altered." we have evidence to suggest that exactly that happened."
That the accounts were altered and Christians called them out on it or that the accounts were just altered and no one noticed.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
"it would be more unusual that the stories were not altered then that they were"
How's that?
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
because you are talking about a context in which a story is being passed orally from person A to B to C to D, etc in a society where fidelity to the exact details of the original story was not a major priority. the disciples simply could not be everywhere at once making sure joe-shumo in smerna was telling the story correctly to tom-soandso.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"Disciples simply could not be everywhere at once making sure joe-shumo in smerna was telling the story correctly to tom-soandso"
No but the Disciples and followers (someone) would have eventually read it or found out saying "What are doing? That's not what happened"
That bring up a point, The disciples were far away from each other when they wrote the Gospels and could not tell what the other one was writing and yet the gospels are all very similar (Gospel of John is possibly an exeption)
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
We can only go by the evidence provided for us. And so far, even though there may not (in your opinion) be enough sufficient evidence for Jesus, we have yet to find any archeological evidence that contradicts the gospels accounts of Jesus.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
archeological evidence is not even the issue at hand. there is no archeological evidence to contradict Islam, Mormonism, the Iliad, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are we to just go ahead and assume them to be true as well.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Not one bit of archeological evidence supports Mormonism or Hindusim where as all the archeological evidence does support christianity with nothing to disprove it. I personally can't even consider Buddhism a religion, it doesn't even believe in a God, it's more like a philosophy. Since Islam is based off Judeo-Christianity it will almost equal to Christians evidence so scriptures is the way to go to disprove it.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
archeological evidence does not prove much to begin with. I personally refer to it as the Troy-fallacy. saying that troy really existed, and that the Iliad is true (Greek gods, Helen, apple of discord and all) are two VERY different things. sames goes for the bible. provide a certain place exists of some broad detail happened does little to prove the actual content of the bible.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Well, if we look at Joseph Smith's gospel the Book of Mormons, we see absolutely no accuracy to anything pertained in it. Not one city, civilization, name, event have been discovered to have ever existed, dates are completely inaccurate. Whereas almost every city, civilization, name, product, structure, event, figure, etc in the gospels of the bible have been discovered to have exited. It gives a little bit of credit to the gospels than just being a bunch of made up fairytales.
(continued...)
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
I could write a wonderful story for you about places i have lived or been to that would be amazingly accurate in the ways you describe, and yet be totally fictional otherwise. I should also point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Okay, but with your wonderful story you will need to add supernatural elements and be able to convince a mass of people, not just one group of people but many groups, classes, societies, religions, etc that your story were true. That's an extremely difficult task to pull off.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
in the modern world it is. in the ancient world, new cults sprung up all the time. the number and variety of people Christianity convinced is irrelevant. to say that it is is to make and Ad populum argument.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
New cults spring up all the time today, you'd still be facing the same challenge. In fact may even be easier today because people today are not so hardcore into their beliefs and everyone in keeping their options open for the truth, whereas then they were hardcore into their faith and you had to be careful when sharing a different faith because you were likely to be stoned to death.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
you have some rather strange ideas about the ancient world. I will admit that Christianity may be a special case. that said, one would encounter NO such trouble introducing a pagan cult into a pagan culture. the emphasis on orthodoxy (what one believes) is a peculiarity of Christianity. cults like Isis and Mirthras has no trouble spreading through ancient Rome.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
I agree, introducing a pagan cult into a pagan culture would not be troublesome, many people don't have a problem with intertwining faiths but to take a completely different religon and telling everyone else that this belief is the only belief to go by and any other belief contrary to that will condemn you to hell would cause some problems.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
(...continued)
We have many secular documents refering to the existence of Jesus. Falvius Josephus is one, which you have already commented on, but I have to disagree with your comment about him, and then we have The first-century Roman Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger, The Babylonian Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, etc. Now you seem to have a problem with contemporary witnesses. The gospels are the contemporary witnesses.
(...continued)
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
all the people you mention wrote about Jesus far enough after the fact that we have to seriously consider how they came about their information. if it is by way of Christians, in which case all they are doing is passing alone stories they were told which makes for a really bad source of evidence.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
(...continued)
if person A invents a character and tells the story to person B AS IF that character was real, then when person B tells it to person C, the fact that the character is fictional is lost, and B and C are both then under the misapprehension that the character in fact exists. what reason do we have to suppose that ANY of the people you mentioned had RELIABLE information about Jesus.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
The gospels are the witnesses of Jesus. Your somewhat telephone theory doesn't exactly apply since the gospels are the original source to Jesus that we may refer back to, so it doesn't matter what was said from A to B to C.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
"The gospels are the witnesses of Jesus." that's speculation, the evidence for which is actually rather underwhelming. also, even IF that is the case, if the gospels or the stories of Christians are (insert secular author here)'s source, then WHY count him as further evidence of Jesus? THAT was my point!
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"that's speculation" I completely agree, I'm just saying its maybe a possibility.
"if the gospels or the stories of Christians are (insert secular author here)'s source, then WHY count him as further evidence of Jesus?"
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused about what your trying to say. The gospels aren't from secular author's.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
my point is that saying someone like Tacitus counts as INDEPENDENT evidence for Jesus is flawed if his information is DEPENDENT on the gospels or Christian stories.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
I'm not able to go too deep into Tacitus because I haven't studied too much about him, but I understand that he is believed to be an accurate historian.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
"accurate historian" accuracy is a relative term he COULD ONLY BE as accurate as the sources he had available to him. if those sources were Christians or the gospels or someone repeating hear-say about Christians of the gospels, then pointing to Tacitus as an INDEPENDENT source is simply folly. all we would then be saying is that "Tacitus knew THE CHRISTIAN STORY OF Jesus" and not "Tacitus had independent information about Jesus". the former is a redundancy, the later would be actually useful.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Tacitus was documenting in the first century just a little more than 30 years after Jesus's life. this bring up two points. 1- the stories weren't able to be passed down very far at all before being able to be altered. 2- People who actually witnessed Jesus were still alive and would have put up a fit if the accounts were altered.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
you are thinking of Josephus. Tacitus was not even born when Jesus was alive, and the Annals was written in 117 AD. that is over 80 year after Jesus' death.
"would have put up a fit if the accounts were altered." we have evidence to suggest that exactly that happened. also, it would be more unusual that the stories were not altered then that they were, at least in the short run.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Maybe they got their info from previous documents that were lost, who knows. Flavius Josephus wasn't too far off considering he mentions that he had met "James the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ". That kinda says something.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
"Maybe they got their info from previous documents that were lost" pure speculation.
"Flavius Josephus..." I am not tryign to argue that Jesus did not exist, but that passage of Josephus may not mean what you think it does.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Let me fix a previous message, I didn't mean the "That's speculation" response but the "Pure Speculation" response is what I completely agree with. Sorry about that.
"I am not tryign to argue that Jesus did not exist"
Awesome, I was a little confused as to where you stood on that.
"that passage of Josephus may not mean what you think it does."
I've read what he said about Jesus and it seems pretty clear what he was trying to say.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
there is a controversy over that passage. some scholars thing that the line "who was called Christ" is a later interpolation, and James and Jesus were common names at that time and place.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
But there are other passages about Jesus that Flavius mentions that it makes it very clear what Jesus he was refering to. Also if Christians did the interpolation then they did a pretty bad job in doing so. Much like the claim that the bible has been tampered with throughout history, if so, then the Corrupted Catholics at the time who would have done it, did a terrible job in tampering with it.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
(...continued)
Also there was a war between the Roman empire and the Jews where many many many documents were destroyed and so only a few things could be salvaged. ALso, it would make sense that the documents were written after his death because his biggest miracle was the ressurection which created the biggest commotion about him and it could have only happened after he died. Before that the Roman Empire couldn't care less about Jesus, they eventually cared because the Jews were pissed off.
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
I simply don't by the story that Jesus was a wonder worker and NO ONE, save for a few zealots seemed to have stood up and took notice. not only that, but the gospels say that even many who witnessed his miracles did not believe him. I mean REALLY! when was the last time you saw someone cure a blind person or raise a dead person?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
the first documented accounts of Alexander the Great were not written until 500 years later after his death/ Would you say that Alexander the Great, an important historical figure, is false?
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
I would say at the very lest that we should question strongly what we are told about him.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Do you feel the same way with every other historical figure through history?
yoursilentfilm 3 years ago
yes, of course! the ancient world was far less concerned (generally speaking) with the literal true of every detail of the story, then will the over all message. embellishment was not discouraged the way it is today.
history uses what is called an "inference to the best explanation".
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Hey, video number 3 is missing :(
Mithcoriel 3 years ago
Watch a video at following link and listen what THE MOST QUALIFIED EXPERT & THE TOP MOST SCHOLAR AND RESEARCHER of present time says on the matter of Crucifixion
tinyurl d o t com/5kt9ew
This video will move the ground under the feet of blind fanatics. When u finish watching this video, pls click on right-upper side of screen on "more from user" to watch another two videos that will shake ur innerself
VERy VERY TRUTHFUL and INFORMATIVE VIDEOs
PurgingFalsehood 3 years ago
This series should have way more views, damn the short attention span of most people.
daswann14 3 years ago
if u dont think hearsay is evidence then u really dont know ancient history
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
And to add to something you mentioned early on in this video...
...And the Gospels were written some thirty years later - in GREEK, that is.
bearpaw72 3 years ago
Tasitus (sp?) only mentions "Christus". Nothing about Jesus.
Christ = Messiah or 'anointed one'.
Josephus was proven to be a forgery for centuries.
Atheist001 3 years ago 2
Tacitus said that Christus started Christianity.Unless you can prove that there was some other Christ crucified and started Christianity.
//Josephus was proven to be a forgery for centuries. //
You actually have to tell that too all the Josephan scholars since Louis Feldman did a statistical study and found that most scholars think it was at least partially authentic.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
I believe you do try and seek our truth, so in that vain I would ask that you read the book called "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Again I am not trying to change your opinion, I would just like you to have all the facts. Blessings to you.
PastorArtKlemme 3 years ago
Actually, I did read the first few chapters and could not finish it because A) It was like all other apologetics I have read, and B) it simply had several glaring flaws due to bias. I laughed when he asked the bible scholar how we can be sure who wrote the gospels and the guy basically says because the church fathers said so "and they had no reason to lie", when in fact they had EVERY reason to lie.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Greetings to you again,
I thank you for your time, and I'll leave it at that. I am not one to belabor a point over and over, I see you have already formed your full opinion, so any other discussion would be fruitless. As I have said I only wanted to be sure you had all the facts, and you seem fairly confident that you do, so I will not be a thorn in your side. For me I will just pray for you, I do not wish that anyone should suffer the second death. Thanks again for your time.
PastorArtKlemme 3 years ago
I honestly wonder how people like you can worship a god you believe on one hand to be loving, and yet also believe he casts people into hell. In my opinion, your god sound cruel, petty, and vindictive, and yet you wonder why I am unable to believe in him.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
There are many so called "Christians" who promote false teachings which lead people like yourself to conclude as you did. Well known "Christian Scholars" don't have insight and mislead many as well. The popular apologist today have no insight. For starters, they need to understand the meaning and translations of Sheol, Hades, and Hell. None refer to a fiery place of torment. One of the biggest falsehoods. God is loving and would never and has never inspired any writer to give this impression.
pskerin 3 years ago
Jesus clearly said that it was better to cut off you hand/foot/eye then be cast into hell with them. Mark 9:43 and 45 describe hell as "fire that never shall be quenched". Luke 16:23 implies that hell is a place of torment. There are several references made to "Hell fire", and in revelations, the "second death" PastorArtKlemme is when all will be cast into the lake of fire. So, you're clearly wrong.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Mark:9- Gehenna is an actual place where garbage and corpse were pitched into. The bodies of those pitched were dead, lifeless. Gehenna and Hades et al. are two very distinct places, but are used as a metaphor to get the point. First you need to know the difference, second you need to know the application. "Third, you need to know the difference between: Hades/ Gehenna/ Second death. IfHell is a literalplace of fire then you're apt to make the same mistake.
Acts2:22-27 refers to Jesus in Hades?
pskerin 3 years ago
Well then "used as a metaphor" for what exactly? Are you attempting to say that there is no hell as is commonly thought of and understood, but there is some other place, the metaphor for which is much like hell as most people think of it? what exactly are you trying to say?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Sheol=grave, Hades=grave, Hell=grave. Death and Hades were thrown in the lake of fire.Rev20:14 Meaning, death and the grave will be no more. The lake of fire means the total non existence of such occurrence or place. Death would be swallowed up forever, meaning everlasting life. Ask yourself, How could Hell be thrown into Hell? Literal Gehenna was an actual place where all refuse, animal,criminals were tossed. It was a constant furnace where all matter would be eventually non existent...contin
pskerin 3 years ago
Ok, I can understand that, but what then do you believe happens to non-Christians when they die / on the Day of Judgment?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
To begin, consider these scriptures in order.
Eccles.9:5-6..Malachi 3:16..John 5:28-29,..Acts17:31...Revelation 3:5....Rev.20:5-15
These will speak better than I can and in this limited space. Digest these for a moment and then we can continue on specifics. Thanks
pskerin 3 years ago
Consider,non christians already dead, and non christians alive before Armegeddon.Those already dead are in line with John