This is the best you have to defend your belief in Jesus? I watched all ten of these, and I love how completly side-step the real questions. The real contradictions are not even addressed. This is almost too sad. I can see how to an indoctrinated person this would not seem to be circular logic, but in reality this is just that. It may seem valid through just one video, but if you watch the whole series, it is so strikingly obvious. you should be ashamed of yourself jcr4runner. Ashamed!!!
lol how can a Bishop come to this theory....sigh...why is it when ppl need money they just write scandalous books claiming new discoveries. Just like the Gnostics of OLD. This is the Gnostics of NOW.
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge from observation. Assuming "R0WMaC" you believe in evolution? Evolution show that things evolved millions of years ago. Now we can't observe millions of years ago can we? We can't observe things evolving into other species can we? Science and evolution contradict each other there for that leap of faith is irrational, highly illogical and cannot be supported by science.
Then please explain to me where the Ileocecal valves (a collection of muscles, made of tissues, which is the definition of an organ) were previous to their adaptation. When you study The lizards that still reside in Italy they don't have them. They adapted by growing a new body part.
I find it most interesting that you accept adaptation, yet fail to understand that adaptation is the most common form of evolution.
Trying to rebuke accepted scientific evidence with unproven "scientific" theory does not bode well for your argument. You assert that something is there when indeed there is zero proof supporting such. If it was in the DNA, as you state, why was it there? And how did it come to be? Can you show it to me?
In a different situation, would some other not yet known DNA sequence kick in and it would sprout other growths to support its life (like wings for example)?
Ah, so you apparently deny the idea of speciation. So tell me, is a St. Bernard a Miniature poodle? We know they are a different species of canine, even though we ourselves have breed them to be so.
We have been diligently manipulating the evolution of wolves for thousands of years, and look what we have to show for it. Hundreds of dogs of various kinds. All from one verifiable, unrefutable, original source.
Though you seem to be in the business of denial, so I'll let it be.
I used to joke with my friends who love Pomeranians by telling them that their dog breed was the closest living relative to the wolf.
A wolf and a chihuahua are the same species. They can be interbred. Their DNA is the same. A wolf is a wild dog. The dog is descended from the domesticated wolf.
Human beings have never bred a new species -- not even from fruit flies that have a lifespan of 30 days. So evolution is not proved that way.
No, their DNA is not the same. If it were, they would all be Pomeranians, not wolves. It's quite obvious they do not share the same strains, and further speciation will result in different animals.
Of course Homo sapiens have not spawned a new species, as we are currently at the top of the tree. If you want to see predecessors you need to work down. Australopithecus anamenises, australopithecus afarensis and so on. Go far enough back and you will find something akin to a lemur.
No, that is wrong. The DNA of a dog is the same as a wolf. The DNA of another species is that of another species. You can also see the difference by looking at chromosome pairs. That is why dog can still interbreed with wolves. If evolution is happening it ought to be observable. Yet there has never been the observed evolution of one species into another -- there is never a new line that cannot interbreed that sprang from an old line.
by "that way" you digress your stance. Back stepping does not help your cause.
Even if Micro was the only step available (which is rather ridicules once you realize that micro+micro=macro) then you can in no way say that humans are the same now as they have always been. It's pretty tough to say we are made in "His image" when we have fossils of early humans with tails...
By saying "not proved that way" you acknowledge micro, which is a part of the whole picture.
Well to some degree you are correct. When I speak of early hominids I speak of human and ape ancestors. All hominids still have vestigial tails. There is no doubt that the ancestors of apes and monkeys had tails, as do the modern representatives of those ancient insectivores, but not all monkeys have long tails, and the reason why is of great interest.
Oh, and for the record. Hominids are still sometimes born with tails. It happens to babies everyday in the world, and they are removed.
You are using a foregone conclusion to infer a presupposition from which to draw a conclusion.
I am saying there is not observable evidence of a species evolving into another one. Domestication has been going on for thousands of years. We've never produced a new species and we never will. There is simply no mechanism that will allow for this.
In fact, anthropologists claim wolves have lived with men for over 100,000 years. It is still a dog which is genetically identical to the wolf species.
Indeed, and 100,000 years is nothing when talking about evolution. I find it interesting that you believe that the anthropologists claims are true though, seeing how the genealogy of your "infallible book" claims that the earth is merely 6,000 years old. Do you not find this conflicting information troubling?
A dog is not genetically identical to a wolf. When something is genetically identical they are called twins. If they are not twins, they are not identical. It's really quite simple.
@jcr4runner And misquitoes in the london subway evolved into a new species in 100 years. Also their capable of reproducing viable offspring, in other words wolfs and dogs are the same species, but they are not genetically identical. Many mutations have occured since humans started breading dogs.
No, I'm using testable evidence to infer reasonable solutions without and regardless of others predetermined bias.
Observable evidence is nothing more than our ever growing mound of fossilized transitional species. We can see them, they're right in front of us. Can we see them alive? No, because sadly our life spans are not millions of years long. You are merely disregarding logic due to your own predetermined conclusions. The one where things happen by magic.
rllling statds of nucleotides out of DNA or readthnging fhem due to rhndom mutation caonot acckynt for theimtion any mgre than randomly chaluhng letters in a alnteice can result in a new sentoince.
First and foremost this was nearly impossible to read. In odrer for smotehnig to be radebale the fsrit and lsat lterets msut be crrocet.
I'll respond to the best of my ability. You make unverifable assertions, as we have not as of yet uncoded all of DNA. You are correct that there are unused strands of DNA, but that does not mean that it was never used.
Whales have DNA for legs. It's something they do not/can not use, but there it is. A sentence is not an organism, so the correlation is moot.
Re:whales, caudal appendages and short and long coccyxes are facts—observable, measurable, and hence scientific facts. But the idea that they are vestigial (evolutionary left-overs or throwbacks) is pure assumption. And even if human caudal appendages were vestigial (which they are not) this would constitute degenerative change (loss of an organ) whereas evolution requires generative change, producing new types of organs that did not exist before
Numbers do not make things true or false. i.e. most Germans believed in Nazism during WW2. Good question about dogma. Is it not sad. Most belief, dogma are not biblical.
This video series presents more evidence than that presented by Jesus Seminar. What more do you need?
A bit arrogant about IQ don't you think (i.e. Francis Collins, Ravi Zacharias etc...
Christianity may be shrinking in the west, but in Asia and even Middle East many are coming to Jesus. Again a western view on live.
This is ridiculous. You can't logically prove a conclusion true by using the conclusion as evidence for that conclusion.
However, *if* God is perfect in every form - then his word MUST be true. Therefore, the word is true and God is true. But once again, the conclusion is already accepted before it has been challenged. So, in that case, there was no argument.
What you must explain is the leap of faith. The leap of faith is irrational, highly illogical and cannot be supported by science.
If a person hit, head on by a car doing 100 mph always dies then you can 'presume' that if you tried it you would die too. You believe this logic enough not to step in front of a speeding car.
This is no way the same as 'presuming', regardless of what you have seen that you will survive.
So to keep saying "all logic starts with some presumptions" is a completely moot point.
The basis of the presumption completely validates the logic. Without this it is meaningless.
plus your argument, if it made any sense would just prove that religious texts that heavily pre-date the bible are proof they are true and that the gods in them existed. therefore your argument if correct (which of course is nonsense) but if it was correct then it would proved that those 'gods' exist and did so long before yours. so in fact it would 'prove' your god doesn't.
Well done apparently you've proved your god doesn't exist. See how silly your logic is?
It sounds like to me that one thing you are stating in this video is that only faith can get you to the godhead not science, archeology, history...(natural and environmental sciences)...etc. or did i misunderstand that portion?
The Bible teaches in Romans 1 that there is natural revelation of God.
In fact, nothing EXCEPT evidence exists.
The reason people deny God is because our sinful and fallen minds suppress the truth in unrighteousness. This can be seen clearly in the hateful and condescending tone of most atheists.
If science can prove God then scientists must be infallible in their interpretations of the data.
But they are not.
But if God exists then the only sure proof is His own Word and His creation.
You are just saying things. There is no basis for it. This is where you fail. An aheist or scientist can explain and often demonstrate why they have come to the conclusion they have. You just say it is so. You can't show it or reason it therefore any person starting from a position of complete open mindedness can only chose the one showing them over the one that is just telling them and asking them to have faith in their words.
Your argument could work to prove anything so proves nothing.
Your obsession concerning The Scriptures being "written by man" ignores the MIND AND INSPIRATION behind the (graphe) written words... It is not a matter about WHO put the Ink on the Papyrus...but who inspired the words.
Your whole faith is based on those few chosen scriptures. The argument here is it is the word of God therefore it prooves his existance. So saying MY obsession with the scriptures is ironic to say the least. It matters who wrote them as to their credibility yet all of you accept that they were written by man 100's of years after it supposedly happened. Any man can write anything making everything in this video is pointless. it just talks nonsense in the hope stupid people will accept it.
The best proof that the word of god is true... is the word of god itself!!!!
Oh dear thats some crazy logic.
The best way i can prove i am god is by telling you i am. And the best PROOF that what i say is true is because i said it. - Thats what they're saying! That I am god!
Everyone bases their idea of Truth on some presuppositions. The atheist is no different. The atheists posits his own thinking as proof God does NOT exist.
It all comes down to whether we trust our own thinking (which contradicts the thinking of the cranium next door) -- or whether we believe there can be some transcendent Truth.
You are quite wrong. No atheist i have heard claims to PROVE god doesn't exist. They simply say, based on universally accepted facts, laws of physics (which you all believe in by your physical actions everyday) demonstrable evidence, reason & logic; there is no more reason to believe in God than there is to believe i am God or in fairies........
....You cannot prove that if you jumped off of the empire state that you wouldn't die but i suspect your knowledge, logic and reason make you believe that you would. Your way is it can't be proved i'll die so i'll jump.
why does this program not go into the fact that christianity started while the romans were in charge of everybody. what if they mixed things with the pagan gods so they could fool everybody to worship the same thing. you know like subliminal messages for basically the new testament
I don't go into that because it has no credibility among scholars and deserves no critique. I am dealing here with liberalism -- which does deserve a hearing and a counter-argument.
i am so tired of the christians holding on to a proven to be anti-humane old testament. The fact that church hasn't banned it in the last 2.k.a. proves that they can't distinguish lies from the truth, therefore, can't be trusted. they are comletely lost
This is a good example of the "two gods heresy" taught in Docetic Gnosticism and Marcionism. Some early heretics wanted to do away with the OT. Their error was there were two gods in the New and Old Testaments.
There is only one God. Jesus Christ was always present as the second person of the Trinity throughout the OT. The nature of God hasn't changed although there are some differences in how redemption is administrated ever since the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.
The Bible teach that the mayority of people will follow the wider path, and will be lost. Just because the mases are running in one direcction (to eternal condemnation), it doesn't mean that they are correct. There is only one way to salvation, Jesus, and like some of you say, the mayority don't beleive in him, and that's ok, Denying God it's the biges sin of them all, One day you will realise it.
The Netherlands is quite a secular country as is most of Europe. While in Rome this past winter, it was clear that even the Italians are no longer religious for the most part. Why is anybody taking these charlatans seriously??
there is no divine authority for us atheists out here. we make our own decisions and take responsibility for our own actions. i think homosexuals can be good people. i think it is okay to have an abortion if you don't think you can properly raise the child. i think you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm another person. i think teaching intelectual responsibility is better than teaching blind faith. and i am not going to hell, because hell is a myth.
The freedom I'm mostly concerned about does not reside from without but from within. I'm seeking the kind of knowledge that truly enlightens regardless of its origins. Freedom is learning to be MORE human -oppose to being MORE THAN human which creates so much human suffering.
In reference to the exoteric freedom in the US, I agree with you-we are freer than most.
But I'm sure you would agree that it's not enough. And if the Bible offers a solution, I have yet to hear it.
Freedom is a complex word subject to many interpretations. I'm sure we could go on sharing our thoughts and concerns about it.
Suffice it to say that I hope some day soon someone will discover a deeper meaning, a deeper wisdom the Bible that what has already been given that can truly transform our hearts and minds for the better...
Until then, I will strive to keep an open heart and mind....
I hope all the best for you and everyone reading this!
Is there a country that is non-Christian that is freer than ours?
Where would you rather be a Buddhist? In Tibet or in America? -- Where would you rather be a Hindu? Downtown Madras or America? -- Where would you rather be a woman Muslim? In Tehran or in America?
The umbrage of Christian freedom based on th Law of God gives more liberties and protections to Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims than countries based upon their own religion.
Freedom of religion is not a Christian concept. Remember Jan Hus? Remember Michael Servetus? Sure, the USA is a fine example of implementing religious freedoms, but so are most European countries. The modern freedom of religion really has it's roots in the enlightenment. Before the enlightenment there was religious tolerance, which is different from Freedom of Religion. It's not a Christian concept (read history) but an enlightenment concept.
"To fight an outdated and exploitive form of society (he is refering here to capitalism and the elite)is an evil because a better, more cohesive form of society, one that is both materially and formally expressive of justice, equality, and freedom, is scientifically and technically possible."
Does the Bible disclose how to make this social change a reality? I mean, how does faith in God, in Jesus, translate into reality as Max mentions?
jcr4runner: what are you talking about? The Netherlands has been ruled by the christian party CDA since 1997 with the exception of the years 1994 -2002. Since 2007 we're even ruled by a coalition made up of two christian political parties: CDA and ChristenUnie. We are in no way a socialist country!
What do you mean by Christian orthodoxy? Do they affirm the First Seven Ecumenical Councils? You know that every Christian Church - and we have many in The Netherlands - considers its own faith orthodox. We have one Christian political party in the parliament (SGP) which doesn't allow women to become a member. Women should stay at home and raise the children. Is that orthodox enough?
And you have to define "heading downhill". It was the socialist politician (and strong believer in Jesus Christ, you might say he was orthodox) Willem Drees who did the most 'christian' thing and made sure every elder got a state pension from age 65 until death. Many Dutch socialists were Christians, you cannot separate the two. Don't believe everything Bill O'Reilly says. The reality is so much more complex.
Abraham Kuyper founded the first political party in The Netherlands, in 1879. The ARP was a Protestant-Christian party. He was no socialist, he instructed workers to be content with little. A man, according to Kuyper, is a 'king in his house'. A woman should obey her man at all times. The ruling CDA party can be traced back to the ARP, but the ideas of Kuyper are outdated. But the 'orthodox' SGP still carries his ideas. They broke from the ARP in 1918 because they didn't want women to vote.
The reason I don't believe in socialism is that it is through coercion on the pain of penalties and even prison or death. True Christian social compassion is voluntary -- and God doesn't reward people who give alms except out of the love of their own hearts.
The state cannot enforce goodness or compassion in the people. It can only punish wrongdoing.
So the state should not be more than a police force and a collection of state prisons? I don't think I would like to live in a country like that. I believe you're mixing up socialism Karl Marx or Hugo Chávez-style with Social Democracy. Even the USA government adapted ideas from social democrats (Medicare, Medicaid). Or are you against Medicare and Medicaid?
The feds make a mess of every program they touch -- rife with waste, fraud and theft.. Social programs should be handled by private charities and in limited circumstances, state and local governments. Centralization is the most inefficient form of government.
Have you thought about the idea that the problem maybe the federal government and not the idea of state organized social programs. In Europe those centralized programs seem to work quite adequate. Or should I compare the feds with the European centralized government in Brussels and the American states with European countries? In that case I understand your apprehension of the US federal government.
If you believe without a doubt, with absolute and positive certainty that your interpretation of the word of God is innerant and that it will save mankind from utter destruction, it would be asking too much from many and from a mere book. If there is a profound widom in the Bible, why has it not manifested in our leaders and in the very fabric of our society? While believing in God and in Jesus is a virtue, it remains insufficient in being able to emanicipate mankind.
Where's your logic? I was a follower for 60 years, and in my twilight years, I studied, I learned and I saw. now I realized the only guilt I had was implanted by people like you. No one lives by the Bible, they, like you pick and choose. You seem, so concerned and logical, but are dangerous to humanity. Sell your wares elsewhere.
To the degree in which we idealize others is the degree in which we dehumanize them, we think of them in absolutes, and we inevitably behave irrationally. And we can see this irrationalism in amorous love and in our respective religion.
She will most likely get angry and tell you to leave her alone. Most likely, she will find out painfully and much too late. The overvaluation of love/faith that we ascribe to others whether it's a person or Jesus is a dehumanizing process mainly because we are idealizing the one in question.
Being an agnostic, I have nothing against religion; in fact I believe all religions have profound meaning. The problem arises when one believes in a creed and designates it as absolute truth and says that all others are wrong. As I see it, this state of mind is dangerous. This would be no different than, say, a woman having fallen deeply in love with a man whose fidelity is unsound but she does not know it. Try telling her that! What will she do?
As you may know, genetics has proven -as a verifiable fact- that we all originated from Africa. Now if the Bible is the word of God, why is it that this was never mentioned in the Bible? Imagine if it had done so with the attention it deserves: African Americans would have been ascribed the highest regard. There would be no discrimination, no lynching, and no injustice towards them.
100 years ago luminiferous aether was proven as a "verifiable scientific fact."
Then Einstein proposed a different theory to explain the same data.
The genetics studies you cite are based on presuppositions that are unproven -- namely that the earliest "homo" fossils are from Africa.
The Bible states that we are all sons and daughters of Noah. If Noah contained all the genetic information that would have led to three distinct people groups, then that would explain the same genetic data.
actually, the DNA samples were not from fossils, but collected from living people all over the world. a technique known as genealogy is used to retrace early migration patterns to the source, which is Africa.
this would mean that Noah settled in Africa after the flood (I'm presupposing the flood).
Again this is based on certain unproven presuppositions. It hasn't been "proven" that mankind came from Africa. It's a hypothesis that some take as a proven theory according to their data.
The word of God, the word of God!!! I'm sick of it!! With all due respect, the greatest prove is NOT the word of God itself but your INTERPRETATION of it.And how many interpretations are there of the Bible and how do you know you have the right one? Just as it has been proven that humanity started in Africa -of which the Bible makes no mention of- so too science will make the bible a mere history book...the days are numbered.
To outsiders this sounds stupid.I spend a lot of time with over whelming profe, some people will resist and not even consider it. So no matter how much profe you bring to them if somone will not submit to God no amount of profe will do anything. We, I guess, can only pray for these people.
First off I would like to thank you for not censoring your comments and to let you know that this shows I was wrong about you being unable to accept criticism and that is truly commendable. However the statement stands for itself & does not discriminate between any creed. Religious fanatics are unable to accept criticism. As to my comment being funny I would argue that the bible stipulate man has free will. Thus no one can make you anything but yourself. One of the stronger points in the bible.
"to sum this up. Truth is revealed not by evidence, but by the word preached." Ok what is wrong with that statement. Oh yes I know.... Everything. Because if you are smart enough to exploit ANY religion and use it for what it most likely is (a means to control the populous)you can begin to assert your own dominance over peoples minds. Who was it that said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." That is all I ask of anyone watching this.
What evidence.. There is none. So you have set yourself up presuming that there is a god and that the word of the bible is true and from there you move to the whole witch came first the chicken or the egg argument. Look up the words false dichotomy as it pertains very well to your argument.
You begin with the assumption that there is no evidence. Of course there is evidence.
Evidence must then be accepted or rejected on its own merit.
The ironic thing about this response is that you begin by doing the thing you accuse Christians of doing -- not examining the evidence.
Cynicism is the easy way to set yourself up as a credible intellect by doubting everything, but what positive contribution have you really made to the debate?
jcr4runner- I have examined the evidence. I have read both the old and the new testament and came to my own conclusion. On top of that I am currently reading the Koran and I can't tell you how many creationist and religious websites I have been too. (matter of fact I am on godtube right now) Not to mention the fact that I went to church for 25 years and was confirmed and baptized. The truth is I know your type of fanaticism very well & nothing is good enough for you. & I am presumptuous?
As to the end of your quote well you neglected to mention that there was more to my comment. That you are not willing to accept criticism just goes to show you why some people think religious fanatics are close minded. I made a strong statement purposefully and for a very good reason. People need to learn to be critical of their beliefs so they do not make mistakes (as I did for so long). It is important and meaningful for all people to have perspective. Live in the here and now not a promise.
This whole v-log is about criticism for and against the biblical point of view. You aren't engaging in biblical criticism, you are using ad hominem attacks branding all Christians who believe the Bible as "fanatics." This is not an argument at all and only serves to expose the tenor and the character of your side.
I think you are begging to understand debate jcr one person presents his side of an argument and another presents their side. And as to your claims that I banded all Christians. wrong! I stated "some people think religious fanatics are close minded" First of all this makes no mention of Christians and would only pertain to you if you were or considered yourself a religious fanatic. Not only do you need to learn to be objective but also to think before you react unwittingly.
The problem is everyone is trying to sound so smart looking for proof. Always trying to prove something. Faith can not be proven. You either have faith and believe or you dont. Nothing will change your mind unless you want it to.
wake un man stop beliving in magics and belive in your self, religions are all enslavementby man and corupt by the need of getting power over u .ask questions look aroud get information by reading get knowleg by studing archeologie, ancient civilisation and beliefall over the world,study history ,get the real translation of words and u will see what u are being thaught over years is not what u think
Your asking us to deny God and to put our faith in ourselves as if we were gods, as if we can have power over all things like gods. Only a fool would place their hope in their own hands.
Well, for me.. I don't believe in God because of the bible at all, although I love reading the bible. My belief is based on God's persuasion. God's continual loving kindness has persuaded me. The man we call Jesus in english is Creator God. I know more than anything it is true and not a lie.. and thats why I want to follow Him (the Person)
Good point. There's a difference between Honda giving a review of its own car -- an opposing view by Chevrolet and a disinterested opinion.
The greatest evidence to prove something is testimony against self-interest -- that is the numerous secular and liberal scholars who have taken a view that the Bible is incredibly historically accurate -- more than any other ancient history -- even thought hey don't accept the miracles and supernatural testimony of the Bible.
You are so ignorant. The Bible proves its validity based on what it says, and more than 25,000 archeological digs prove that. If nothing else, the prophesies prove it.
how come jesus diyd for are sins . . yet at the sametime we are born in sin. . . it dosnt make since. . .
how is it that god kills some1 else for some1 elses mistake. . i {with respect} dont see this as love. . why did jesus pray and 2 who. . and
why is it that god has not seen it fit 2 portect the bible from errors. . and who is the new profit 2 come affter jesus. ike the bible says. . you do know it also says a book will be given 2 him and he will say im am not learned
i agree with you a lot, and i am not trying to persecute the scriptures because i am trying to be rebellious, i am a black man and i know that a lot of blacks were suppressed with christian religions and even killed by the millions over christ in his name just as well as the indians and may other colored races, why? massiah would let something happen like that in his name, moses never mentions jesus in the old testament niether,moses spoke with yaweh directly
i agree with you to, but i would think you should take time to consider this. if i am a dog, and i bite someone, does that mean all dogs are going to bite? the point i'm trying to make is that it takes a TRAINED dog, not to bite. same thing with christians back then. yes they killed in the name of God, but they were uneducated. do you see the point i am trying to make?
When skeptics criticize Christians for being hypocrites, they unwittingly endorse the Christian message that they themselves won't embrace.
They say the church is full of hypocrites and they are right to an extent -- so they are welcome to accept Christ despite their skepticism since there is always room for one more!
Wow! jcr. I don't know how this makes any sense inside your head. I had to read it three times to make sure I read it right and was not going crazy. If I criticize something I am endorsing it? lol.
There is always room for one more... One more what?.. a hypocrite? That is what it sounds like you are saying to me. lol Tell me that is not it at all... Although you have to admit it sounds funny.
(false until proved true), but with the humanities a softer science is required since poems, music, literature and "history" don't exactly fit in a test tube. Science uses "irreducible axioms" like philosophy to aquire truth. The Church through Agustine used
these also. The greek term is DOGMA. I like Pontius Pilate retort to Jesus: 'What is "truth?"' (John 18:37-38)
Einstein didn't believe in the "personal God" of the Bible. Against his own beliefs though, after formula showing the expansion of the universe, and there fore the universe having an origin, He did believe in a creator. Theres a huge difference in believing in "no God".
dude jesus did exist, jofeasas, who was a jewish historian, wrote about jesus as a miricle worker. look him up and you will see there is strong evidence in that writing. also, my brother was healed from lopus, jesus healed him. believe in christ he is the real deal!
Given what Origen says about Josephus: "Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..." (Contra Celsus, Chapter 47) we KNOW that this passage has been tampered with. The only issue is the degree-and experts have every view ranging from minor alteration to full blown forgery.
Origen was quoting the SECOND Josephus passage about Jesus where he says, "Jesus the so-called Christ," this implies that Josephus himself was not a Christian
No one has argued that Josephus was a Christian. Even the first Josephus passage about Jesus is not thought to to be a forgery, but that it may contain interpolations -- even though no physical proof in the form of manuscripts WITHOUT the first or second passage exist.
See my YOUTUBE video: "Is Josephus' account of Jesus a forgery?"
Sorry, but if you look at Origen at Early Christan writings the passage right before states "For in the *18th* book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite."
says that Josephus is looking at the 18th book of his Antiquities. The second reference to Jesus in his book is in the *20th* book (Antiquities 20.9.1 to be more accutate.
The hearts of the presenters and producers of this video are in the right place..however their brains are not. They are basically summing up by saying, "we have no proof that Jesus existed... but we don't need any because the bible tells us that we don't" Kinda convenient that the writers of the bible should pre-empt this awkward situation and brazenly seek to turn it to its advantage. Most amusing.
If you take us quite literally, it's the greatest proof among many others.
"Although there is outside evidence, the greatest proof that the Bible is true comes from the Word itself."
"... it is impossible to 'prove' Scripture using evidence from philosophy, history, archaeology, science, and other rational proofs. To do so would be to claim that these proofs have the same infallible authority as God himself."
no one is claiming anything - rational people are simply saying... nice book... but any organised bunch of intelligent, imaginative, moral and literate people could have written it given time and resourses... so some independant proof would be nice please. Oh..there isn't any.. damn thats a shame. Well excuse me if I feel its a bit suspect in that case.
In fact, nothing else exists EXCEPT outside proof. However, because the minds of the converted are darkened, you will always suppress the truth in unrighteousness. In the final analysis, the most convincing proof is God's Word in and of itself.
Incidentally, i have no agenda here - just searching for the real truth and some of that truth has to come from within - but like anything else historical - proper solid, historical back-up is needed. we may be called a "flock" at times by the ordained - but i'm no sheep.
When "rationalists" look at the Bible they feel that they must not only reject the miraculous but also the historical context and reconstruct the text as something that was written much later than claimed. The reason for this is that the New Testament is a compelling book and f it were indeed written by eyewitnesses, then even some of the remarkable claims would deserve some credence.
If the historical, archaeological and textual evidence for the NT were applied to another work, such as the Wars of Julius Caesar, there would be no problem. But since the Gospels present Jesus as the Son of God who preached repentance from sin and the gift of salvation, then it's rejected by those who feel their status quo threatened. They go to all sorts of unreasonable lengths to deny the Bible's reliability and authenticity.
Non sequitur. There is plenty of contempory accounts that show Julius Caesar existed never mind all coins, mosaics, and the like. This is akin to Fomenko who has this total delusion that Jesus lived and died in the 11th century and then twists everything around to fit.
I am not arguing that Caesar did not exist, I am arguing that if the same level of unreasonable scrutiny were placed on the classical works of history as you place on the New Testament, we'd have no history. The fact is that the nearest copy of Caesar's Wars appears 1000 years after the event. How then can we trust anything written therein to be reliable?
The logic is kind of circular. Given things seen with John Frum, Bermuda Triangle, supposed alien visitations, the D&D-Satanism scare, and other nonsense we know that things can manipulated and urban legends can form in very short time periods. There is more evidence for Spring Heeled Jack than for Jesus.
All logic is based on unproven premises or presuppositions. So all logic is ultimately circular.
How do you know your beginning point is true?
Christians postulate God and His Word as the ultimate presupposition. But we are no different than atheists in this regard in that they presuppose unproven premises too.
All logic is based on unproven premises or presuppositions? Sorry but that is NOT true. Logic has many subfields: Syllogistic, Predicate, Modal, Deduction, Mathematical, and Philosophical. Then the logical process produces a paradox than something somewhere is wrong.
Great vid,the attackers of God's Word have not humbly sought out the many infallible proofs of Jesus' life,death,and Resurrection. One the other hand former believers hate that we still humbly find peace and rest in Christ the LORD IMO.
Y ignore the facts? Plus proof is here b/c when "the saved" get sick, they go 2 the doctor not church. But the "saved" supposedly have authority over these issues including death, right? If u look around u carefully, u will see no 1 upon attaining so-called deliverance is exempt from disease, IGNORANCE, poverty or death. Question with a BOLDNESS, the existence of God, for if he exists, he would more appreciate the homage of reason, then those of blind-folded fear.
It wrong not to show Sacred Tradition as an important corner stone on the existance Jesus. Mainly, because Sacred Scripture (The New Testament) is but a fraction of Sacred Tradition: the Oral Transmission of the Word of God.
My point is that from the Time of Jesus Birth (7 BC) till the writing of the 1st Gospel (57 AD) there is approximately 64 years "the Jesus Story" was transmitted ORALLY from Believer to Believer.
In the 1st 1500 years the vast majority of Christians were uneducated, illiterit. They were mostly poor or slaves. They could not buy one piece of paper much less a book, like the Bible. But God forsaw all this and brought the Holy Spirit to the Apostles on Pentecost as "A Fiery Tongue", thus born the Oral transmission of the Word of God - Sacred Tradition.
The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority.... The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."
(Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus)
jesus is not a myth. he's real. the myth is his deity. people have been planted by a deity myth from dionysus or a like. when his news came 2 those ppl, they couldnt change totally, that's why they only changed the person not the belief. unless, why in early christianity, there're 2 visions on him, as deity n prophet (just a man/claimed as gnostic)? if the myth is true there shuold 1: the deity, as all ppl just had the myth 4 a long time.
Its amazing how you say this with such confidence and assurance, as though you are certain what you are saying is fact. Go to tektonics dot org and look at some of the articles on the main homepage (particularly New Testament and Jesus sections).
God created you with big brain and if you are stupid,there is nothing God could could do.Paul McCartney is alive and you have people say 'Paul is dead'.Go watch and received 'MIRACLE OF DAMASCUS' at Youtube.
How could u say that this "word" is proof? Im not trying 2 offend u, but if this isn't delusional, It's IGNORANT. B/C Jesus' life is patterned after Ancient Egyptian lore of Heru. How could u possibly in ur right mind IGNORE a people who gave u the RECIPE 4 A MESSIAH(immaculate conception, death and rebirth)? Of course u would assign no relevance 2 the story of Heru, cause then u would have 2 realize how ur plagiarized concept of God derives of those whom ur "word" claim are heathens.
If you watch the entire documentary, they touch on pagan and other myth's paralleling Jesus's story. Also, please try to consider the fact that all but one of the apostles died a martyrs death.
What are you waisting your time in false debates!Please just stop telling lyes to the people!Don't you see that the Hole Bible is corrupted,first read all the bible versions,than you will see that corruption,The verses are not the same in the all Bible versions!
When you say "Bible versions" I assume you mean translations. I suggest that people buy two books to see for themselves whether the Bible is corrupted.
1. The Dead Sea Bible translated from Hebrew into Modern English
2. Any interlinear Greek New Testament
This will prove even to the casual Bible student that the ancient manuscripts are reliable and modern translations are accurate.
Wow, great video you're all putting up here. Keep creating these good pieces of work, because Jesus will be pleased and allow you to create even more and better materials for now and future for Christians and those who seek God!!:) Jesus Rules!!
This is the best you have to defend your belief in Jesus? I watched all ten of these, and I love how completly side-step the real questions. The real contradictions are not even addressed. This is almost too sad. I can see how to an indoctrinated person this would not seem to be circular logic, but in reality this is just that. It may seem valid through just one video, but if you watch the whole series, it is so strikingly obvious. you should be ashamed of yourself jcr4runner. Ashamed!!!
robbocox1981 1 year ago 4
Wow, This is a heated arguement. I'm not even going to add fuel to the fire on this one. It's literally been tapped out literally... dang
MrJaredML 1 year ago
lol how can a Bishop come to this theory....sigh...why is it when ppl need money they just write scandalous books claiming new discoveries. Just like the Gnostics of OLD. This is the Gnostics of NOW.
hawklanzs 2 years ago
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge from observation. Assuming "R0WMaC" you believe in evolution? Evolution show that things evolved millions of years ago. Now we can't observe millions of years ago can we? We can't observe things evolving into other species can we? Science and evolution contradict each other there for that leap of faith is irrational, highly illogical and cannot be supported by science.
Tomekwinxs 2 years ago
We have observed evolution. I suggest looking at Italian wall lizards. While the full story can be found with a google, I'll paraphrase for you.
1. Scientists bring Italian wall lizards to an island.
2. War breaks out on island, scientists flee, leaving lizards behind.
3. Lizards escape and incorporate themselves into the island's eco.
4. Years later war ends and scientists come back to find lizards inhabit island.
5. Upon studying lizards scientists are astounded to find lizards have new organ
drakionx 2 years ago
The Wall Lizards did NOT develop a new organ. They adapted quickly to their environment, but they did not evolve into a new species.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Oh?
Then please explain to me where the Ileocecal valves (a collection of muscles, made of tissues, which is the definition of an organ) were previous to their adaptation. When you study The lizards that still reside in Italy they don't have them. They adapted by growing a new body part.
I find it most interesting that you accept adaptation, yet fail to understand that adaptation is the most common form of evolution.
Micro leads to macro. It's simple really.
drakionx 2 years ago
It's a larger body part that was already part of its DNA.
It was not a new organ.
Your definition of an organ is wrong by the way. If it was really a new organ that no lizard of that species had, then that would be a new species.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
And you know this how?
Trying to rebuke accepted scientific evidence with unproven "scientific" theory does not bode well for your argument. You assert that something is there when indeed there is zero proof supporting such. If it was in the DNA, as you state, why was it there? And how did it come to be? Can you show it to me?
In a different situation, would some other not yet known DNA sequence kick in and it would sprout other growths to support its life (like wings for example)?
drakionx 2 years ago
@jcr4runner No, what makes them a sepearete species is the ability to mate with viable offspring.
humanistheart 1 year ago
Ah, so you apparently deny the idea of speciation. So tell me, is a St. Bernard a Miniature poodle? We know they are a different species of canine, even though we ourselves have breed them to be so.
We have been diligently manipulating the evolution of wolves for thousands of years, and look what we have to show for it. Hundreds of dogs of various kinds. All from one verifiable, unrefutable, original source.
Though you seem to be in the business of denial, so I'll let it be.
drakionx 2 years ago
I used to joke with my friends who love Pomeranians by telling them that their dog breed was the closest living relative to the wolf.
A wolf and a chihuahua are the same species. They can be interbred. Their DNA is the same. A wolf is a wild dog. The dog is descended from the domesticated wolf.
Human beings have never bred a new species -- not even from fruit flies that have a lifespan of 30 days. So evolution is not proved that way.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
No, their DNA is not the same. If it were, they would all be Pomeranians, not wolves. It's quite obvious they do not share the same strains, and further speciation will result in different animals.
Of course Homo sapiens have not spawned a new species, as we are currently at the top of the tree. If you want to see predecessors you need to work down. Australopithecus anamenises, australopithecus afarensis and so on. Go far enough back and you will find something akin to a lemur.
drakionx 2 years ago
No, that is wrong. The DNA of a dog is the same as a wolf. The DNA of another species is that of another species. You can also see the difference by looking at chromosome pairs. That is why dog can still interbreed with wolves. If evolution is happening it ought to be observable. Yet there has never been the observed evolution of one species into another -- there is never a new line that cannot interbreed that sprang from an old line.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
by "that way" you digress your stance. Back stepping does not help your cause.
Even if Micro was the only step available (which is rather ridicules once you realize that micro+micro=macro) then you can in no way say that humans are the same now as they have always been. It's pretty tough to say we are made in "His image" when we have fossils of early humans with tails...
By saying "not proved that way" you acknowledge micro, which is a part of the whole picture.
That's good enough for me
drakionx 2 years ago
There are no early Hominids with tails.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Well to some degree you are correct. When I speak of early hominids I speak of human and ape ancestors. All hominids still have vestigial tails. There is no doubt that the ancestors of apes and monkeys had tails, as do the modern representatives of those ancient insectivores, but not all monkeys have long tails, and the reason why is of great interest.
Oh, and for the record. Hominids are still sometimes born with tails. It happens to babies everyday in the world, and they are removed.
drakionx 2 years ago
You are using a foregone conclusion to infer a presupposition from which to draw a conclusion.
I am saying there is not observable evidence of a species evolving into another one. Domestication has been going on for thousands of years. We've never produced a new species and we never will. There is simply no mechanism that will allow for this.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
In fact, anthropologists claim wolves have lived with men for over 100,000 years. It is still a dog which is genetically identical to the wolf species.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Indeed, and 100,000 years is nothing when talking about evolution. I find it interesting that you believe that the anthropologists claims are true though, seeing how the genealogy of your "infallible book" claims that the earth is merely 6,000 years old. Do you not find this conflicting information troubling?
A dog is not genetically identical to a wolf. When something is genetically identical they are called twins. If they are not twins, they are not identical. It's really quite simple.
drakionx 2 years ago
@jcr4runner And misquitoes in the london subway evolved into a new species in 100 years. Also their capable of reproducing viable offspring, in other words wolfs and dogs are the same species, but they are not genetically identical. Many mutations have occured since humans started breading dogs.
humanistheart 1 year ago
No, I'm using testable evidence to infer reasonable solutions without and regardless of others predetermined bias.
Observable evidence is nothing more than our ever growing mound of fossilized transitional species. We can see them, they're right in front of us. Can we see them alive? No, because sadly our life spans are not millions of years long. You are merely disregarding logic due to your own predetermined conclusions. The one where things happen by magic.
drakionx 2 years ago
An ever growing mound?
Just how many hominid fossils do you think there are?
Has any ever been proven to be anything other than an extinct ape or a human being?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
@jcr4runner
Oh, so you've never heard of neanderthals, lucy, or ardi huh?
humanistheart 1 year ago
rllling statds of nucleotides out of DNA or readthnging fhem due to rhndom mutation caonot acckynt for theimtion any mgre than randomly chaluhng letters in a alnteice can result in a new sentoince.
What you end up with is something you cannot use.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
First and foremost this was nearly impossible to read. In odrer for smotehnig to be radebale the fsrit and lsat lterets msut be crrocet.
I'll respond to the best of my ability. You make unverifable assertions, as we have not as of yet uncoded all of DNA. You are correct that there are unused strands of DNA, but that does not mean that it was never used.
Whales have DNA for legs. It's something they do not/can not use, but there it is. A sentence is not an organism, so the correlation is moot.
drakionx 2 years ago
Re:whales, caudal appendages and short and long coccyxes are facts—observable, measurable, and hence scientific facts. But the idea that they are vestigial (evolutionary left-overs or throwbacks) is pure assumption. And even if human caudal appendages were vestigial (which they are not) this would constitute degenerative change (loss of an organ) whereas evolution requires generative change, producing new types of organs that did not exist before
EndTimeDelusion1 2 years ago
As I have been answering your questions, I wish to ask a few of my own if allowed:
What evidence do you present to support your claims, and how may I test it?
How can your evidence not be used by other religions to support their claims?
*Why is less than 33% of the earth Christian, and why among them do belief, dogma, and actions split nearly infinitely?
*Why is there a direct correlation between low IQ and high faith?
*Why are all but one religion (Muslim) shrinking?
*will link if asked
drakionx 2 years ago
There are more Christians than Muslims.
Muslims count every person in a Muslim country whether they profess or practice the religion or not. Even so professing Christians outnumber them.
Even if we speak only of evangelicals (professing born-again Christians) it is the fastest growing religion in the world.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Numbers do not make things true or false. i.e. most Germans believed in Nazism during WW2. Good question about dogma. Is it not sad. Most belief, dogma are not biblical.
This video series presents more evidence than that presented by Jesus Seminar. What more do you need?
A bit arrogant about IQ don't you think (i.e. Francis Collins, Ravi Zacharias etc...
Christianity may be shrinking in the west, but in Asia and even Middle East many are coming to Jesus. Again a western view on live.
zsifk 1 year ago
This is ridiculous. You can't logically prove a conclusion true by using the conclusion as evidence for that conclusion.
However, *if* God is perfect in every form - then his word MUST be true. Therefore, the word is true and God is true. But once again, the conclusion is already accepted before it has been challenged. So, in that case, there was no argument.
What you must explain is the leap of faith. The leap of faith is irrational, highly illogical and cannot be supported by science.
R0WMaC 2 years ago
If a person hit, head on by a car doing 100 mph always dies then you can 'presume' that if you tried it you would die too. You believe this logic enough not to step in front of a speeding car.
This is no way the same as 'presuming', regardless of what you have seen that you will survive.
So to keep saying "all logic starts with some presumptions" is a completely moot point.
The basis of the presumption completely validates the logic. Without this it is meaningless.
Please stop saying it.
TheOnlyBunn 2 years ago
plus your argument, if it made any sense would just prove that religious texts that heavily pre-date the bible are proof they are true and that the gods in them existed. therefore your argument if correct (which of course is nonsense) but if it was correct then it would proved that those 'gods' exist and did so long before yours. so in fact it would 'prove' your god doesn't.
Well done apparently you've proved your god doesn't exist. See how silly your logic is?
TheOnlyBunn 2 years ago
If you accept the Bible then no religious account predates the account of Creation.
Your argument of "religious texts that heavily predate the Bible" is an oxymoron.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Holy circular reasoning batman.
"We believe the authority of the word because jesus christ himself gave it."
So... you know the bible is true because the bible is true... great.
This thing failed in the first 50 seconds.
Mystile33 2 years ago 8
why not talk about ferries and elves.
grown up people talking about imaginary people and entities. it makes me sad
hakkespade 2 years ago
It sounds like to me that one thing you are stating in this video is that only faith can get you to the godhead not science, archeology, history...(natural and environmental sciences)...etc. or did i misunderstand that portion?
michaeljobr 2 years ago
The Bible teaches in Romans 1 that there is natural revelation of God.
In fact, nothing EXCEPT evidence exists.
The reason people deny God is because our sinful and fallen minds suppress the truth in unrighteousness. This can be seen clearly in the hateful and condescending tone of most atheists.
If science can prove God then scientists must be infallible in their interpretations of the data.
But they are not.
But if God exists then the only sure proof is His own Word and His creation.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
You are just saying things. There is no basis for it. This is where you fail. An aheist or scientist can explain and often demonstrate why they have come to the conclusion they have. You just say it is so. You can't show it or reason it therefore any person starting from a position of complete open mindedness can only chose the one showing them over the one that is just telling them and asking them to have faith in their words.
Your argument could work to prove anything so proves nothing.
TheOnlyBunn 2 years ago
If I use presuppositionalism to prove the Koran is correct, then the Bible becomes false. This is nothing but circular logic.
RandallLord 2 years ago
Now i know why could never see or listen to bishop spong without feeling like i was going to throw up.
EndTimeDelusion1 2 years ago
Do you agree the scriptures (including all the ones christians choose to ignore) were written by man?
TheOnlyBunn 2 years ago
Your obsession concerning The Scriptures being "written by man" ignores the MIND AND INSPIRATION behind the (graphe) written words... It is not a matter about WHO put the Ink on the Papyrus...but who inspired the words.
MrBiblia 2 years ago
Your whole faith is based on those few chosen scriptures. The argument here is it is the word of God therefore it prooves his existance. So saying MY obsession with the scriptures is ironic to say the least. It matters who wrote them as to their credibility yet all of you accept that they were written by man 100's of years after it supposedly happened. Any man can write anything making everything in this video is pointless. it just talks nonsense in the hope stupid people will accept it.
TheOnlyBunn 2 years ago
The best proof that the word of god is true... is the word of god itself!!!!
Oh dear thats some crazy logic.
The best way i can prove i am god is by telling you i am. And the best PROOF that what i say is true is because i said it. - Thats what they're saying! That I am god!
Wow... and to think me an atheist.
TheOnlyBunn 2 years ago
Everyone bases their idea of Truth on some presuppositions. The atheist is no different. The atheists posits his own thinking as proof God does NOT exist.
It all comes down to whether we trust our own thinking (which contradicts the thinking of the cranium next door) -- or whether we believe there can be some transcendent Truth.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
You are quite wrong. No atheist i have heard claims to PROVE god doesn't exist. They simply say, based on universally accepted facts, laws of physics (which you all believe in by your physical actions everyday) demonstrable evidence, reason & logic; there is no more reason to believe in God than there is to believe i am God or in fairies........
TheOnlyBunn 2 years ago
....You cannot prove that if you jumped off of the empire state that you wouldn't die but i suspect your knowledge, logic and reason make you believe that you would. Your way is it can't be proved i'll die so i'll jump.
TheOnlyBunn 2 years ago
Amen! Good luck to you my brother and sister. Continue your works of preaching the truth and defending the Word of God. God bless.
primecrimson 2 years ago
are you atheist or do you bleve in god
br26ya7nb 2 years ago
why does this program not go into the fact that christianity started while the romans were in charge of everybody. what if they mixed things with the pagan gods so they could fool everybody to worship the same thing. you know like subliminal messages for basically the new testament
2g3b 2 years ago
The Piso Family Conspiracy theory?
I don't go into that because it has no credibility among scholars and deserves no critique. I am dealing here with liberalism -- which does deserve a hearing and a counter-argument.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
hell yea you ! you are presuming that bible is infallible. how do you know that?
Is it because it says it's ok kill you children? or repress women?
therealallpro 2 years ago
The Bible it says "it's ok to kill your children? or repress women?"
Chapter and verse please?
jcr4runner 2 years ago
Deuteronomy 21: 18-21/ 1 timonthy 2:11-14.
" I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man"
therealallpro 2 years ago 4
Horror of horrors! Male eldership!
jcr4runner 2 years ago
i am so tired of the christians holding on to a proven to be anti-humane old testament. The fact that church hasn't banned it in the last 2.k.a. proves that they can't distinguish lies from the truth, therefore, can't be trusted. they are comletely lost
coturnix19 2 years ago
This is a good example of the "two gods heresy" taught in Docetic Gnosticism and Marcionism. Some early heretics wanted to do away with the OT. Their error was there were two gods in the New and Old Testaments.
There is only one God. Jesus Christ was always present as the second person of the Trinity throughout the OT. The nature of God hasn't changed although there are some differences in how redemption is administrated ever since the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.
jcr4runner 2 years ago
The Bible teach that the mayority of people will follow the wider path, and will be lost. Just because the mases are running in one direcction (to eternal condemnation), it doesn't mean that they are correct. There is only one way to salvation, Jesus, and like some of you say, the mayority don't beleive in him, and that's ok, Denying God it's the biges sin of them all, One day you will realise it.
elagentenumerouno 2 years ago
The Netherlands is quite a secular country as is most of Europe. While in Rome this past winter, it was clear that even the Italians are no longer religious for the most part. Why is anybody taking these charlatans seriously??
intermediatespecies 2 years ago
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:1,14).
teeggarscott 3 years ago
Wow. Admit you are retarded much?
kix4trix 3 years ago
there is no divine authority for us atheists out here. we make our own decisions and take responsibility for our own actions. i think homosexuals can be good people. i think it is okay to have an abortion if you don't think you can properly raise the child. i think you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm another person. i think teaching intelectual responsibility is better than teaching blind faith. and i am not going to hell, because hell is a myth.
greycloud24 3 years ago
The freedom I'm mostly concerned about does not reside from without but from within. I'm seeking the kind of knowledge that truly enlightens regardless of its origins. Freedom is learning to be MORE human -oppose to being MORE THAN human which creates so much human suffering.
In reference to the exoteric freedom in the US, I agree with you-we are freer than most.
But I'm sure you would agree that it's not enough. And if the Bible offers a solution, I have yet to hear it.
GnosisMan50 3 years ago
Well jcr4runner,
Freedom is a complex word subject to many interpretations. I'm sure we could go on sharing our thoughts and concerns about it.
Suffice it to say that I hope some day soon someone will discover a deeper meaning, a deeper wisdom the Bible that what has already been given that can truly transform our hearts and minds for the better...
Until then, I will strive to keep an open heart and mind....
I hope all the best for you and everyone reading this!
GnosisMan50 3 years ago
I notice you didn't answer the question!
Is there a country that is non-Christian that is freer than ours?
Where would you rather be a Buddhist? In Tibet or in America? -- Where would you rather be a Hindu? Downtown Madras or America? -- Where would you rather be a woman Muslim? In Tehran or in America?
The umbrage of Christian freedom based on th Law of God gives more liberties and protections to Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims than countries based upon their own religion.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Freedom of religion is not a Christian concept. Remember Jan Hus? Remember Michael Servetus? Sure, the USA is a fine example of implementing religious freedoms, but so are most European countries. The modern freedom of religion really has it's roots in the enlightenment. Before the enlightenment there was religious tolerance, which is different from Freedom of Religion. It's not a Christian concept (read history) but an enlightenment concept.
pjhaas 3 years ago
jcr4runner,
Max Horkeimer mentioned:
"To fight an outdated and exploitive form of society (he is refering here to capitalism and the elite)is an evil because a better, more cohesive form of society, one that is both materially and formally expressive of justice, equality, and freedom, is scientifically and technically possible."
Does the Bible disclose how to make this social change a reality? I mean, how does faith in God, in Jesus, translate into reality as Max mentions?
GnosisMan50 3 years ago
You live in a nation that values individual freedom.
Can you think of a culture that is based on a non-Christian system that offers this much freedom?
jcr4runner 3 years ago
sweden, UK, netherland, greenland, most atheist countries.
greycloud24 3 years ago
All these countries have a strong Christian heritage but are now heading downhill because of socialism.
Oh ... I forgot .. except Greenland ... the model atheist civilization !
jcr4runner 3 years ago
jcr4runner: what are you talking about? The Netherlands has been ruled by the christian party CDA since 1997 with the exception of the years 1994 -2002. Since 2007 we're even ruled by a coalition made up of two christian political parties: CDA and ChristenUnie. We are in no way a socialist country!
pjhaas 3 years ago
I did not know that.
Do they affirm Christan orthodoxy?
jcr4runner 3 years ago
What do you mean by Christian orthodoxy? Do they affirm the First Seven Ecumenical Councils? You know that every Christian Church - and we have many in The Netherlands - considers its own faith orthodox. We have one Christian political party in the parliament (SGP) which doesn't allow women to become a member. Women should stay at home and raise the children. Is that orthodox enough?
pjhaas 3 years ago
And you have to define "heading downhill". It was the socialist politician (and strong believer in Jesus Christ, you might say he was orthodox) Willem Drees who did the most 'christian' thing and made sure every elder got a state pension from age 65 until death. Many Dutch socialists were Christians, you cannot separate the two. Don't believe everything Bill O'Reilly says. The reality is so much more complex.
pjhaas 3 years ago
That is interesting.
How is Abraham Kuyper viewed by these parties today?
I apologize if I generalized about the Dutch. Of course, you are anything but a stereotype -- maybe a little crazy -- but not a boring stereotype.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Abraham Kuyper founded the first political party in The Netherlands, in 1879. The ARP was a Protestant-Christian party. He was no socialist, he instructed workers to be content with little. A man, according to Kuyper, is a 'king in his house'. A woman should obey her man at all times. The ruling CDA party can be traced back to the ARP, but the ideas of Kuyper are outdated. But the 'orthodox' SGP still carries his ideas. They broke from the ARP in 1918 because they didn't want women to vote.
pjhaas 3 years ago
The reason I don't believe in socialism is that it is through coercion on the pain of penalties and even prison or death. True Christian social compassion is voluntary -- and God doesn't reward people who give alms except out of the love of their own hearts.
The state cannot enforce goodness or compassion in the people. It can only punish wrongdoing.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
So the state should not be more than a police force and a collection of state prisons? I don't think I would like to live in a country like that. I believe you're mixing up socialism Karl Marx or Hugo Chávez-style with Social Democracy. Even the USA government adapted ideas from social democrats (Medicare, Medicaid). Or are you against Medicare and Medicaid?
pjhaas 3 years ago
The federal government, yes..
The feds make a mess of every program they touch -- rife with waste, fraud and theft.. Social programs should be handled by private charities and in limited circumstances, state and local governments. Centralization is the most inefficient form of government.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Have you thought about the idea that the problem maybe the federal government and not the idea of state organized social programs. In Europe those centralized programs seem to work quite adequate. Or should I compare the feds with the European centralized government in Brussels and the American states with European countries? In that case I understand your apprehension of the US federal government.
pjhaas 3 years ago
jcr4runner,
If you believe without a doubt, with absolute and positive certainty that your interpretation of the word of God is innerant and that it will save mankind from utter destruction, it would be asking too much from many and from a mere book. If there is a profound widom in the Bible, why has it not manifested in our leaders and in the very fabric of our society? While believing in God and in Jesus is a virtue, it remains insufficient in being able to emanicipate mankind.
GnosisMan50 3 years ago
The fact that the world is imperfect only proves that mankind is sinful and needs a Savior. It doesn't disprove the existence of God.
Whether you and I believe "without a doubt" is irrelevant.
Either Jesus Christ is God -- or He is not.
Either He exists transcendently, that is, outside of time in eternity -- or He does not.
However, if He does exist, then it makes perfect sense that He would have revealed himself in the way the Bible describes.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Where's your logic? I was a follower for 60 years, and in my twilight years, I studied, I learned and I saw. now I realized the only guilt I had was implanted by people like you. No one lives by the Bible, they, like you pick and choose. You seem, so concerned and logical, but are dangerous to humanity. Sell your wares elsewhere.
ktorch 3 years ago
If you were full of guilt then you had a perverse version of Christianity. Jesus doesn't teach people to be full of guilt.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
To the degree in which we idealize others is the degree in which we dehumanize them, we think of them in absolutes, and we inevitably behave irrationally. And we can see this irrationalism in amorous love and in our respective religion.
GnosisMan50 3 years ago
She will most likely get angry and tell you to leave her alone. Most likely, she will find out painfully and much too late. The overvaluation of love/faith that we ascribe to others whether it's a person or Jesus is a dehumanizing process mainly because we are idealizing the one in question.
GnosisMan50 3 years ago
Being an agnostic, I have nothing against religion; in fact I believe all religions have profound meaning. The problem arises when one believes in a creed and designates it as absolute truth and says that all others are wrong. As I see it, this state of mind is dangerous. This would be no different than, say, a woman having fallen deeply in love with a man whose fidelity is unsound but she does not know it. Try telling her that! What will she do?
GnosisMan50 3 years ago
Hi jcr4runner,
As you may know, genetics has proven -as a verifiable fact- that we all originated from Africa. Now if the Bible is the word of God, why is it that this was never mentioned in the Bible? Imagine if it had done so with the attention it deserves: African Americans would have been ascribed the highest regard. There would be no discrimination, no lynching, and no injustice towards them.
GnosisMan50 3 years ago
100 years ago luminiferous aether was proven as a "verifiable scientific fact."
Then Einstein proposed a different theory to explain the same data.
The genetics studies you cite are based on presuppositions that are unproven -- namely that the earliest "homo" fossils are from Africa.
The Bible states that we are all sons and daughters of Noah. If Noah contained all the genetic information that would have led to three distinct people groups, then that would explain the same genetic data.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
actually, the DNA samples were not from fossils, but collected from living people all over the world. a technique known as genealogy is used to retrace early migration patterns to the source, which is Africa.
this would mean that Noah settled in Africa after the flood (I'm presupposing the flood).
xboi108th 3 years ago
Again this is based on certain unproven presuppositions. It hasn't been "proven" that mankind came from Africa. It's a hypothesis that some take as a proven theory according to their data.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
The word of God, the word of God!!! I'm sick of it!! With all due respect, the greatest prove is NOT the word of God itself but your INTERPRETATION of it.And how many interpretations are there of the Bible and how do you know you have the right one? Just as it has been proven that humanity started in Africa -of which the Bible makes no mention of- so too science will make the bible a mere history book...the days are numbered.
GnosisMan50 3 years ago
To use science to prove or disprove the Bible, you would have to believe that science is inerrant, which no scientist believes.
If you believe that ONLY the Word of God is inerrant then logically the greatest proof that it is true comes from the Word of God itself.
Science is USEFUL, but it is impossible to use science to PROVE anything unless you think science is infallible.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
To outsiders this sounds stupid.I spend a lot of time with over whelming profe, some people will resist and not even consider it. So no matter how much profe you bring to them if somone will not submit to God no amount of profe will do anything. We, I guess, can only pray for these people.
amanda366 3 years ago
"this ... would only pertain to you if you ... considered yourself a religious fanatic."
You are funny.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
First off I would like to thank you for not censoring your comments and to let you know that this shows I was wrong about you being unable to accept criticism and that is truly commendable. However the statement stands for itself & does not discriminate between any creed. Religious fanatics are unable to accept criticism. As to my comment being funny I would argue that the bible stipulate man has free will. Thus no one can make you anything but yourself. One of the stronger points in the bible.
x1tekja 3 years ago
I agree with x1: free will is EVERYTHING. This is true.
deadheadlooser 3 years ago
People, I recommend an excellent book:
The Teachings of the Church Fathers, by John R. Willis.
It's on Amazon.
Jitpring 3 years ago
"to sum this up. Truth is revealed not by evidence, but by the word preached." Ok what is wrong with that statement. Oh yes I know.... Everything. Because if you are smart enough to exploit ANY religion and use it for what it most likely is (a means to control the populous)you can begin to assert your own dominance over peoples minds. Who was it that said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." That is all I ask of anyone watching this.
x1tekja 3 years ago
Which has to be true? -- The evidence that proves the Word of God, or the Word itself?
Obviously, both need to be true, but the point here is that once you put the evidence first, you give it higher authority than the Word itself.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
What evidence.. There is none. So you have set yourself up presuming that there is a god and that the word of the bible is true and from there you move to the whole witch came first the chicken or the egg argument. Look up the words false dichotomy as it pertains very well to your argument.
x1tekja 3 years ago
You begin with the assumption that there is no evidence. Of course there is evidence.
Evidence must then be accepted or rejected on its own merit.
The ironic thing about this response is that you begin by doing the thing you accuse Christians of doing -- not examining the evidence.
Cynicism is the easy way to set yourself up as a credible intellect by doubting everything, but what positive contribution have you really made to the debate?
"There is no evidence!" is not a rebuttal.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
jcr4runner- I have examined the evidence. I have read both the old and the new testament and came to my own conclusion. On top of that I am currently reading the Koran and I can't tell you how many creationist and religious websites I have been too. (matter of fact I am on godtube right now) Not to mention the fact that I went to church for 25 years and was confirmed and baptized. The truth is I know your type of fanaticism very well & nothing is good enough for you. & I am presumptuous?
x1tekja 3 years ago
As to the end of your quote well you neglected to mention that there was more to my comment. That you are not willing to accept criticism just goes to show you why some people think religious fanatics are close minded. I made a strong statement purposefully and for a very good reason. People need to learn to be critical of their beliefs so they do not make mistakes (as I did for so long). It is important and meaningful for all people to have perspective. Live in the here and now not a promise.
x1tekja 3 years ago
This whole v-log is about criticism for and against the biblical point of view. You aren't engaging in biblical criticism, you are using ad hominem attacks branding all Christians who believe the Bible as "fanatics." This is not an argument at all and only serves to expose the tenor and the character of your side.
jcr4runner 3 years ago
I think you are begging to understand debate jcr one person presents his side of an argument and another presents their side. And as to your claims that I banded all Christians. wrong! I stated "some people think religious fanatics are close minded" First of all this makes no mention of Christians and would only pertain to you if you were or considered yourself a religious fanatic. Not only do you need to learn to be objective but also to think before you react unwittingly.
x1tekja 3 years ago
You are one branch on Christian's tree.There are many branches,such as Orthodox,Coptic,Aramenians etc.
Protestants have hundreds of different churches as does Gnosticism.
Some are false as Wicca and Jim Jones.
Some Gnostics were the inner circle of Jesus who taught how Jesus is with all people through his Holy Spirit.
Gnostics were deemed heretics by the Roman Church.
Our enemies are within who have left the faith and Islam but not the Gnostics.
GodistheHolySpirit 3 years ago
The problem is everyone is trying to sound so smart looking for proof. Always trying to prove something. Faith can not be proven. You either have faith and believe or you dont. Nothing will change your mind unless you want it to.
YoungGunz187 3 years ago 2
wake un man stop beliving in magics and belive in your self, religions are all enslavementby man and corupt by the need of getting power over u .ask questions look aroud get information by reading get knowleg by studing archeologie, ancient civilisation and beliefall over the world,study history ,get the real translation of words and u will see what u are being thaught over years is not what u think
mystisme 4 years ago
Your asking us to deny God and to put our faith in ourselves as if we were gods, as if we can have power over all things like gods. Only a fool would place their hope in their own hands.
Glorthac 4 years ago 2
Well, for me.. I don't believe in God because of the bible at all, although I love reading the bible. My belief is based on God's persuasion. God's continual loving kindness has persuaded me. The man we call Jesus in english is Creator God. I know more than anything it is true and not a lie.. and thats why I want to follow Him (the Person)
headachehealer 4 years ago 3
can the bible prove the validity of the bible?....uh...no kiddies....no it can't that would be circular
statnerd52 4 years ago
All logic is ultimately circular in that it begins with unproven premises or presuppositions. Christians just use presuppositions found in the Bible.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
it's like honda giving a review of the Accord
GodLessRant 4 years ago
Good point. There's a difference between Honda giving a review of its own car -- an opposing view by Chevrolet and a disinterested opinion.
The greatest evidence to prove something is testimony against self-interest -- that is the numerous secular and liberal scholars who have taken a view that the Bible is incredibly historically accurate -- more than any other ancient history -- even thought hey don't accept the miracles and supernatural testimony of the Bible.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
You are so ignorant. The Bible proves its validity based on what it says, and more than 25,000 archeological digs prove that. If nothing else, the prophesies prove it.
BryanMark2 4 years ago
is there people living in china? please proof it to tme there a but show me physical no picture or video i want to go there!!!!
salvador36213 4 years ago
how come jesus diyd for are sins . . yet at the sametime we are born in sin. . . it dosnt make since. . .
how is it that god kills some1 else for some1 elses mistake. . i {with respect} dont see this as love. . why did jesus pray and 2 who. . and
why is it that god has not seen it fit 2 portect the bible from errors. . and who is the new profit 2 come affter jesus. ike the bible says. . you do know it also says a book will be given 2 him and he will say im am not learned
rudeboywaz 4 years ago
i agree with you a lot, and i am not trying to persecute the scriptures because i am trying to be rebellious, i am a black man and i know that a lot of blacks were suppressed with christian religions and even killed by the millions over christ in his name just as well as the indians and may other colored races, why? massiah would let something happen like that in his name, moses never mentions jesus in the old testament niether,moses spoke with yaweh directly
2slikkrikk 4 years ago
i agree with you to, but i would think you should take time to consider this. if i am a dog, and i bite someone, does that mean all dogs are going to bite? the point i'm trying to make is that it takes a TRAINED dog, not to bite. same thing with christians back then. yes they killed in the name of God, but they were uneducated. do you see the point i am trying to make?
categoryD 3 years ago
Yes.
When skeptics criticize Christians for being hypocrites, they unwittingly endorse the Christian message that they themselves won't embrace.
They say the church is full of hypocrites and they are right to an extent -- so they are welcome to accept Christ despite their skepticism since there is always room for one more!
jcr4runner 3 years ago
Wow! jcr. I don't know how this makes any sense inside your head. I had to read it three times to make sure I read it right and was not going crazy. If I criticize something I am endorsing it? lol.
There is always room for one more... One more what?.. a hypocrite? That is what it sounds like you are saying to me. lol Tell me that is not it at all... Although you have to admit it sounds funny.
x1tekja 3 years ago
Modern truth is verified through falsification
(false until proved true), but with the humanities a softer science is required since poems, music, literature and "history" don't exactly fit in a test tube. Science uses "irreducible axioms" like philosophy to aquire truth. The Church through Agustine used
these also. The greek term is DOGMA. I like Pontius Pilate retort to Jesus: 'What is "truth?"' (John 18:37-38)
bwildasi 4 years ago
"Truth is not revelead by evidence, but by truth preached"
safapresley 4 years ago
Yes, because otherwise the evidence itself becomes TRUTH.
Ultimately all facts, truth, knowledge -- or whatever you believe -- is based on a preexistent objective Truth.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
The deeper one penetrates into nature's secrets, the greater becomes one's respect for God: A.Einstein
YARTES 4 years ago
Einstein did not believe in god.
safapresley 4 years ago
Einstein didn't believe in the "personal God" of the Bible. Against his own beliefs though, after formula showing the expansion of the universe, and there fore the universe having an origin, He did believe in a creator. Theres a huge difference in believing in "no God".
VideoOutlawz 4 years ago
Einstein was a sort of an optimistic deist and perhaps even a theist. Definitely not an atheist.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
dude jesus did exist, jofeasas, who was a jewish historian, wrote about jesus as a miricle worker. look him up and you will see there is strong evidence in that writing. also, my brother was healed from lopus, jesus healed him. believe in christ he is the real deal!
nigger130 4 years ago
Given what Origen says about Josephus: "Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..." (Contra Celsus, Chapter 47) we KNOW that this passage has been tampered with. The only issue is the degree-and experts have every view ranging from minor alteration to full blown forgery.
Maximara 4 years ago
Origen was quoting the SECOND Josephus passage about Jesus where he says, "Jesus the so-called Christ," this implies that Josephus himself was not a Christian
No one has argued that Josephus was a Christian. Even the first Josephus passage about Jesus is not thought to to be a forgery, but that it may contain interpolations -- even though no physical proof in the form of manuscripts WITHOUT the first or second passage exist.
See my YOUTUBE video: "Is Josephus' account of Jesus a forgery?"
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Sorry, but if you look at Origen at Early Christan writings the passage right before states "For in the *18th* book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite."
says that Josephus is looking at the 18th book of his Antiquities. The second reference to Jesus in his book is in the *20th* book (Antiquities 20.9.1 to be more accutate.
"in the of the Jews"
Maximara 4 years ago
The hearts of the presenters and producers of this video are in the right place..however their brains are not. They are basically summing up by saying, "we have no proof that Jesus existed... but we don't need any because the bible tells us that we don't" Kinda convenient that the writers of the bible should pre-empt this awkward situation and brazenly seek to turn it to its advantage. Most amusing.
kalsolarUK 4 years ago
If you take us quite literally, it's the greatest proof among many others.
"Although there is outside evidence, the greatest proof that the Bible is true comes from the Word itself."
"... it is impossible to 'prove' Scripture using evidence from philosophy, history, archaeology, science, and other rational proofs. To do so would be to claim that these proofs have the same infallible authority as God himself."
jcr4runner 4 years ago
no one is claiming anything - rational people are simply saying... nice book... but any organised bunch of intelligent, imaginative, moral and literate people could have written it given time and resourses... so some independant proof would be nice please. Oh..there isn't any.. damn thats a shame. Well excuse me if I feel its a bit suspect in that case.
kalsolarUK 4 years ago
In fact, nothing else exists EXCEPT outside proof. However, because the minds of the converted are darkened, you will always suppress the truth in unrighteousness. In the final analysis, the most convincing proof is God's Word in and of itself.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Incidentally, i have no agenda here - just searching for the real truth and some of that truth has to come from within - but like anything else historical - proper solid, historical back-up is needed. we may be called a "flock" at times by the ordained - but i'm no sheep.
kalsolarUK 4 years ago
When "rationalists" look at the Bible they feel that they must not only reject the miraculous but also the historical context and reconstruct the text as something that was written much later than claimed. The reason for this is that the New Testament is a compelling book and f it were indeed written by eyewitnesses, then even some of the remarkable claims would deserve some credence.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
If the historical, archaeological and textual evidence for the NT were applied to another work, such as the Wars of Julius Caesar, there would be no problem. But since the Gospels present Jesus as the Son of God who preached repentance from sin and the gift of salvation, then it's rejected by those who feel their status quo threatened. They go to all sorts of unreasonable lengths to deny the Bible's reliability and authenticity.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
Non sequitur. There is plenty of contempory accounts that show Julius Caesar existed never mind all coins, mosaics, and the like. This is akin to Fomenko who has this total delusion that Jesus lived and died in the 11th century and then twists everything around to fit.
Maximara 4 years ago
I am not arguing that Caesar did not exist, I am arguing that if the same level of unreasonable scrutiny were placed on the classical works of history as you place on the New Testament, we'd have no history. The fact is that the nearest copy of Caesar's Wars appears 1000 years after the event. How then can we trust anything written therein to be reliable?
jcr4runner 4 years ago
The logic is kind of circular. Given things seen with John Frum, Bermuda Triangle, supposed alien visitations, the D&D-Satanism scare, and other nonsense we know that things can manipulated and urban legends can form in very short time periods. There is more evidence for Spring Heeled Jack than for Jesus.
Maximara 4 years ago
All logic is based on unproven premises or presuppositions. So all logic is ultimately circular.
How do you know your beginning point is true?
Christians postulate God and His Word as the ultimate presupposition. But we are no different than atheists in this regard in that they presuppose unproven premises too.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
All logic is based on unproven premises or presuppositions? Sorry but that is NOT true. Logic has many subfields: Syllogistic, Predicate, Modal, Deduction, Mathematical, and Philosophical. Then the logical process produces a paradox than something somewhere is wrong.
Maximara 4 years ago
No that's incorrect. All logic ultimately begins with a premise, postulate or presupposition that is unproven.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
'When the logical process produces a paradox than something somewhere is wrong' is inccorrect? (there was a typo) That is so insane as to be inane.
Maximara 4 years ago
people rejoice in the miracle i tell you the good news my eyes have seen the holy spirit the word of god is real the truth has revealed itself
koduckman 4 years ago
Walk by faith, not by sight
cyberwaffles 4 years ago
So, is that an admission that there is no way to prove the Bible rationally whatsoever?
Seekerman20 4 years ago
"...we do not have to go beyond the gospels in order to find a historical Jesus..."
Haha ya I think that's exactly what it is....
walabie25 4 years ago
Great vid,the attackers of God's Word have not humbly sought out the many infallible proofs of Jesus' life,death,and Resurrection. One the other hand former believers hate that we still humbly find peace and rest in Christ the LORD IMO.
dingorex 4 years ago
The Word of God is under attack more now then ever (at least openly). I am grateful for these appologetic posts.
ThatIMayUnderstand 4 years ago
Y ignore the facts? Plus proof is here b/c when "the saved" get sick, they go 2 the doctor not church. But the "saved" supposedly have authority over these issues including death, right? If u look around u carefully, u will see no 1 upon attaining so-called deliverance is exempt from disease, IGNORANCE, poverty or death. Question with a BOLDNESS, the existence of God, for if he exists, he would more appreciate the homage of reason, then those of blind-folded fear.
Nuwbien 4 years ago
It wrong not to show Sacred Tradition as an important corner stone on the existance Jesus. Mainly, because Sacred Scripture (The New Testament) is but a fraction of Sacred Tradition: the Oral Transmission of the Word of God.
My point is that from the Time of Jesus Birth (7 BC) till the writing of the 1st Gospel (57 AD) there is approximately 64 years "the Jesus Story" was transmitted ORALLY from Believer to Believer.
yo1dude1man 4 years ago
In the 1st 1500 years the vast majority of Christians were uneducated, illiterit. They were mostly poor or slaves. They could not buy one piece of paper much less a book, like the Bible. But God forsaw all this and brought the Holy Spirit to the Apostles on Pentecost as "A Fiery Tongue", thus born the Oral transmission of the Word of God - Sacred Tradition.
yo1dude1man 4 years ago
Anti Christ Paul corrupted the Gospel of Jesus
The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority.... The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."
(Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus)
jrkhan123 4 years ago
Nice :)
pyrotoast 4 years ago
Nice videos
TheFlyingChristian 4 years ago
jesus is not a myth. he's real. the myth is his deity. people have been planted by a deity myth from dionysus or a like. when his news came 2 those ppl, they couldnt change totally, that's why they only changed the person not the belief. unless, why in early christianity, there're 2 visions on him, as deity n prophet (just a man/claimed as gnostic)? if the myth is true there shuold 1: the deity, as all ppl just had the myth 4 a long time.
baratlaut 4 years ago
You sound islamic to me.
Remember, Jesus still loves you. He is indeed the Lord of Lords.
Religion is not the answer. Jesus Christ is.
singinrick 4 years ago
Its amazing how you say this with such confidence and assurance, as though you are certain what you are saying is fact. Go to tektonics dot org and look at some of the articles on the main homepage (particularly New Testament and Jesus sections).
bazb1985 4 years ago
God created you with big brain and if you are stupid,there is nothing God could could do.Paul McCartney is alive and you have people say 'Paul is dead'.Go watch and received 'MIRACLE OF DAMASCUS' at Youtube.
AMOS2809 4 years ago
I recall that he was asked if it were true in an interview!
That really anticipated the postmodernist phenomenon of the Jesus Mythists.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
How could u say that this "word" is proof? Im not trying 2 offend u, but if this isn't delusional, It's IGNORANT. B/C Jesus' life is patterned after Ancient Egyptian lore of Heru. How could u possibly in ur right mind IGNORE a people who gave u the RECIPE 4 A MESSIAH(immaculate conception, death and rebirth)? Of course u would assign no relevance 2 the story of Heru, cause then u would have 2 realize how ur plagiarized concept of God derives of those whom ur "word" claim are heathens.
Nuwbien 4 years ago
If you watch the entire documentary, they touch on pagan and other myth's paralleling Jesus's story. Also, please try to consider the fact that all but one of the apostles died a martyrs death.
matros22 4 years ago 2
What are you waisting your time in false debates!Please just stop telling lyes to the people!Don't you see that the Hole Bible is corrupted,first read all the bible versions,than you will see that corruption,The verses are not the same in the all Bible versions!
Traxarab 4 years ago
When you say "Bible versions" I assume you mean translations. I suggest that people buy two books to see for themselves whether the Bible is corrupted.
1. The Dead Sea Bible translated from Hebrew into Modern English
2. Any interlinear Greek New Testament
This will prove even to the casual Bible student that the ancient manuscripts are reliable and modern translations are accurate.
jcr4runner 4 years ago
AMEN brother, AMEN.
singinrick 4 years ago 2
Wow, great video you're all putting up here. Keep creating these good pieces of work, because Jesus will be pleased and allow you to create even more and better materials for now and future for Christians and those who seek God!!:) Jesus Rules!!
ShineCity711 4 years ago 2