Apparently there's more written evidence of 'Jesus of Nazareth', than there is for Julius Caeser or William Shakespeare...haven't checked myself. But the fact that the Bible is still the number one sold book ever (unless Harry Potter has beaten it) is pretty strong evidence that there was someone called Jesus who lived approx 2000 years ago and has caused a bigger impact with his three years f ministry than anyone before or since. Love Mark's preaching, keep it going!
@111222cabinet: The quantity of bibles that have been sold have no bearing on the valdidity of the claims that are made in it. By that logic, if say the Harry Potter books were to surpass the bible in overall sales would that mean that the story of Harry Potter would be true?
@slap2tap2 People like you are to atheism what the young earth creationists are to Christianity. Not only is the life of Jesus factual, but Archaeologists have used the bible as a guide for places to excavate and have found items that prove its stories to be true. Please, do some research.
@bilsim Please where is the reliable source that you make these extroadinary claims, is there any positive evidence whatsoever to show that Jesus was the son of God or ever existed. And don't tell me the Bible has any scientific evidence that guides archaeologists claim to have found these extraodinary items. Also are they really qualified archaeologists? Because just about anybody can claim they are an archaeologist but not have the credentials of one.Lastly what are these extroadinary items?
@seonf Good question. none of them are eye witnesses except possibly Mara Bar-Serapion (whose letter is preserved as a copy from the 6th or 7th century). They are all commentators/historians and cannot be considered as evidentiary of Jesus' existence. The Gnostic writings are an odd addition to the list, since they were rejected as Nicea as heretical.
@DieFatorLiveThin Exactly, no one who knew Jesus or saw his "Miracles" wrote them down. It was all by 2nd hand witnesses. Don't you think if Jesus really had multitudes of followers someone would have written about him? Gnostic gospels were written in the 2nd century: no eye witness could have written them
All the New Testament documents were written down by 70AD. But the bad thing is that we dont have the original texts anymore. What we do have, are manuscripts, and lots of them. We have 5.300 greek manuscripts, from different geographical areas, and are still remarkably similiar. These manuscripts are dated back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. We also have thousands of manuscripts in other languages like latin and gothic, aswell as letters from Christians containing citations from Scripture.
@LarsTheHonest "But the bad thing is that we dont have the original texts anymore" so how do you know they were written in 70AD? They were quoted in the second half of the 2nd century, that's all.
@seonf I cant explain everything here in the comment section, but I'll just say this: The majority of contemporary scholars agree that Pauls letters were written around the 50s, the other letters between 50s and 70s, and the four gospels within 70AD. This is the current consensus among the biblical scholars. The reason is because Paul died in the mid 60s, but still Acts ends before Paul dies. That strongly indicates that the book was written in the early 60s.
@seonf continued.. And since Acts is the second part of Luke's gospel, Luke had to have been written before Acts. And Since Luke and Matthew are partially based on Mark's gospel, Mark has to be even earlier. And Matthew at about the same time. John's gospel may have been later, but the general consensus says that John was written within 70AD. Remember; John was the only apostle that lived a long life, he was the only one who escaped martyrdom, and thus had more time to write his gospel.
@LarsTheHonest But the gospel of Luke was written to Theophilus of Antioch who was born in 169 CE...come on. What do the scholars say about the gospel of Luke being written?
@seonf What are you talking about? No, it wasn't. It was written by Luke, and was used by the first Christians. Someone may have written a copy to Theophilus, but it sure wasn't the original.
@LarsTheHonest You obviously havn't read the gospel of Luke. Wow and I thought you were a Christian
1: 3it seemed good to me also, having meticulously traced everything again from the top, to write it down in sequence for you, O most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the reliability of things you have been told. According to .wikipedia . org / wiki / Theophilus # Religious the earliest Theophilus to exist lived in 163-162 AD read the bible next time.
@seonf LOL, that is not the same person as Theophilus of Antioch! Did you know that its possible for two different persons to have the same name? Theophilus (the one mentioned in Luke) was probably a Roman official living in the first century.
Did you think Luke, who was an eyewitness to Jesus, still lived to write his gospel in 169+ AD ?
@seonf You believe we have all the names of everyone who lived in the first century? Sorry, we don't. Theophilus, the roman official, may very well have lived in the first century, based on the short references in Luke and Acts.
@LarsTheHonest Do you have any evidence or is that just a guess? Wouldn't it be more logical the gospel of Luke be written for a Christian leader then a Roman? What purpose would the writer have to write the gospel for a Roman?
@seonf It makes very much sense that Luke would write down the occurrences during and after Jesus' life, to a Christian Roman. We know that the gospel of Luke was written in the first century, so it is impossible that the book was written to someone in the second century. And the book wasn't written explicitly to Theophilus, but to everyone who loved God, and to all people in general.
@LarsTheHonest "We know that the gospel of Luke was written in the first century" how?
"It makes very much sense that Luke would write down the occurrences during and after Jesus' life, to a Christian Roman"
Which Biblical scholar thinks it was written to a Roman?
"it seemed good to me also, having meticulously traced everything again from the top, to write it down in sequence for you, O most excellent Theophilus"
@seonf "Most excellent Theophilus" is a Roman title. That is why we believe he was a Roman.
If you are basing your entire claim on one piece of scripture adressing someone who happens to have the same name as someone in the second century, then I strongly recommend you to change your mind about that claim.
@seonf Luke was a first century gentile, he wrote about things that only someone in the first century could know. And Acts ends before Paul died, which tells us that his book was written before his death. We only hear about Pauls death from extra biblical sources written down later by other authors. There is no point arguing that Luke was written down in the second century. Thats the end of the argument. Good night, sir, it is late here in Norway.
@LarsTheHonest Well...I did some research and found Theophilus ben Ananus was a Roman high priest of Israel but why would Luke want to write his gospel for a Jewish priest? Yeah it is the only argument used in my book, which quotes the Catholic encyclopedia. That Theophilus lived from 163–182 AD.
Howver, in "Is the new testament history" Irenaeus says Luke was a companion of Paul and write the gospel of luke in 170 AD
I don't think Luke would have written to a 7 year old. Do you?
@seonf That isn't the right Theophilus either. When you read that Theophilus ben Ananus lived from 163-182, you should have automatically assumed that it could not be the same person as the one mentioned in Luke. It's that simple, all evidence points to the gospel being written around 50-60AD, and its a waste of time to argue otherwise.
@seonf Did you know that among the disciples emerging after Jesus' crucifixion were a man named Jesus? Does that mean that Jesus never really ascended to heaven? Or that he never died? Of course not, lets end the discussion here, I assume you you've changed your mind.
@williamguycoov have you read all this evidence for yourself? I doubt it, or you would not call it "overwhelming evidence", because my friend it is anything but :)
@williamguycoov Seriously? One of those is [potential] evidence for Jesus. There is by far and away MORE evidence for Caesar, and that even if you throw out the books he wrote, things like inscriptions form the time he lived, eye witness accounts to his deeds, and other contemporary accounts. The two possible historical witnesses for the life of Christ are The New Testament and [potentially] Josephus.
Atheism= Bad science Theism= Good logical science
bammc19 2 months ago
Comment removed
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
This guy is an arrogant, snot nosed, egomaniac, little PRICK!
DetoxMansion 11 months ago
@DetoxMansion You must be a very sad angry person. I going to pray for you right now that your heart might be touched and that you might find Christ.
gfrog2000 10 months ago
marks a great teacher
patriciacarrasco 1 year ago
Apparently there's more written evidence of 'Jesus of Nazareth', than there is for Julius Caeser or William Shakespeare...haven't checked myself. But the fact that the Bible is still the number one sold book ever (unless Harry Potter has beaten it) is pretty strong evidence that there was someone called Jesus who lived approx 2000 years ago and has caused a bigger impact with his three years f ministry than anyone before or since. Love Mark's preaching, keep it going!
111222cabinet 1 year ago 8
@111222cabinet: The quantity of bibles that have been sold have no bearing on the valdidity of the claims that are made in it. By that logic, if say the Harry Potter books were to surpass the bible in overall sales would that mean that the story of Harry Potter would be true?
noibn2 4 months ago
@111222cabinet Yes - see my playlist - ; Jesus Outside The Bible
IdaSputum 3 weeks ago
Historical evidence of Jesus? From where? The fairy tale book you call 'the bible'? You got to be joking
slap2tap2 1 year ago
@slap2tap2 People like you are to atheism what the young earth creationists are to Christianity. Not only is the life of Jesus factual, but Archaeologists have used the bible as a guide for places to excavate and have found items that prove its stories to be true. Please, do some research.
bilsim 1 year ago
Comment removed
slap2tap2 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@bilsim Please where is the reliable source that you make these extroadinary claims, is there any positive evidence whatsoever to show that Jesus was the son of God or ever existed. And don't tell me the Bible has any scientific evidence that guides archaeologists claim to have found these extraodinary items. Also are they really qualified archaeologists? Because just about anybody can claim they are an archaeologist but not have the credentials of one.Lastly what are these extroadinary items?
slap2tap2 1 year ago 12
@slap2tap2 There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. look some up,
The first-century Roman Tacitus
Flavius Josephus
Julius Africanus
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96
Lucian of Samosata
Mara Bar-Serapion
the Gnostic writings
williamguycoov 1 year ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
@williamguycoov Youve been suckin jesus' pole too much bro
slap2tap2 1 year ago
Did any of those people live at the time of Jesus or did they just report what others said about him?
seonf 1 year ago
@seonf Good question. none of them are eye witnesses except possibly Mara Bar-Serapion (whose letter is preserved as a copy from the 6th or 7th century). They are all commentators/historians and cannot be considered as evidentiary of Jesus' existence. The Gnostic writings are an odd addition to the list, since they were rejected as Nicea as heretical.
DieFatorLiveThin 11 months ago
@DieFatorLiveThin Exactly, no one who knew Jesus or saw his "Miracles" wrote them down. It was all by 2nd hand witnesses. Don't you think if Jesus really had multitudes of followers someone would have written about him? Gnostic gospels were written in the 2nd century: no eye witness could have written them
seonf 11 months ago
All the New Testament documents were written down by 70AD. But the bad thing is that we dont have the original texts anymore. What we do have, are manuscripts, and lots of them. We have 5.300 greek manuscripts, from different geographical areas, and are still remarkably similiar. These manuscripts are dated back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. We also have thousands of manuscripts in other languages like latin and gothic, aswell as letters from Christians containing citations from Scripture.
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@LarsTheHonest "But the bad thing is that we dont have the original texts anymore" so how do you know they were written in 70AD? They were quoted in the second half of the 2nd century, that's all.
seonf 10 months ago
@seonf I cant explain everything here in the comment section, but I'll just say this: The majority of contemporary scholars agree that Pauls letters were written around the 50s, the other letters between 50s and 70s, and the four gospels within 70AD. This is the current consensus among the biblical scholars. The reason is because Paul died in the mid 60s, but still Acts ends before Paul dies. That strongly indicates that the book was written in the early 60s.
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
Comment removed
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@seonf continued.. And since Acts is the second part of Luke's gospel, Luke had to have been written before Acts. And Since Luke and Matthew are partially based on Mark's gospel, Mark has to be even earlier. And Matthew at about the same time. John's gospel may have been later, but the general consensus says that John was written within 70AD. Remember; John was the only apostle that lived a long life, he was the only one who escaped martyrdom, and thus had more time to write his gospel.
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@LarsTheHonest But the gospel of Luke was written to Theophilus of Antioch who was born in 169 CE...come on. What do the scholars say about the gospel of Luke being written?
seonf 10 months ago
@seonf What are you talking about? No, it wasn't. It was written by Luke, and was used by the first Christians. Someone may have written a copy to Theophilus, but it sure wasn't the original.
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@LarsTheHonest You obviously havn't read the gospel of Luke. Wow and I thought you were a Christian
1: 3it seemed good to me also, having meticulously traced everything again from the top, to write it down in sequence for you, O most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the reliability of things you have been told. According to .wikipedia . org / wiki / Theophilus # Religious the earliest Theophilus to exist lived in 163-162 AD read the bible next time.
seonf 10 months ago
Comment removed
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seonf LOL, that is not the same person as Theophilus of Antioch! Did you know that its possible for two different persons to have the same name? Theophilus (the one mentioned in Luke) was probably a Roman official living in the first century.
Did you think Luke, who was an eyewitness to Jesus, still lived to write his gospel in 169+ AD ?
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@seonf You believe we have all the names of everyone who lived in the first century? Sorry, we don't. Theophilus, the roman official, may very well have lived in the first century, based on the short references in Luke and Acts.
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@LarsTheHonest Do you have any evidence or is that just a guess? Wouldn't it be more logical the gospel of Luke be written for a Christian leader then a Roman? What purpose would the writer have to write the gospel for a Roman?
seonf 10 months ago
@seonf It makes very much sense that Luke would write down the occurrences during and after Jesus' life, to a Christian Roman. We know that the gospel of Luke was written in the first century, so it is impossible that the book was written to someone in the second century. And the book wasn't written explicitly to Theophilus, but to everyone who loved God, and to all people in general.
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@LarsTheHonest "We know that the gospel of Luke was written in the first century" how?
"It makes very much sense that Luke would write down the occurrences during and after Jesus' life, to a Christian Roman"
Which Biblical scholar thinks it was written to a Roman?
"it seemed good to me also, having meticulously traced everything again from the top, to write it down in sequence for you, O most excellent Theophilus"
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
seonf 10 months ago
@seonf "Most excellent Theophilus" is a Roman title. That is why we believe he was a Roman.
If you are basing your entire claim on one piece of scripture adressing someone who happens to have the same name as someone in the second century, then I strongly recommend you to change your mind about that claim.
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@seonf Luke was a first century gentile, he wrote about things that only someone in the first century could know. And Acts ends before Paul died, which tells us that his book was written before his death. We only hear about Pauls death from extra biblical sources written down later by other authors. There is no point arguing that Luke was written down in the second century. Thats the end of the argument. Good night, sir, it is late here in Norway.
~Lars
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago 2
@LarsTheHonest Well...I did some research and found Theophilus ben Ananus was a Roman high priest of Israel but why would Luke want to write his gospel for a Jewish priest? Yeah it is the only argument used in my book, which quotes the Catholic encyclopedia. That Theophilus lived from 163–182 AD.
Howver, in "Is the new testament history" Irenaeus says Luke was a companion of Paul and write the gospel of luke in 170 AD
I don't think Luke would have written to a 7 year old. Do you?
seonf 10 months ago
@seonf That isn't the right Theophilus either. When you read that Theophilus ben Ananus lived from 163-182, you should have automatically assumed that it could not be the same person as the one mentioned in Luke. It's that simple, all evidence points to the gospel being written around 50-60AD, and its a waste of time to argue otherwise.
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@seonf Did you know that among the disciples emerging after Jesus' crucifixion were a man named Jesus? Does that mean that Jesus never really ascended to heaven? Or that he never died? Of course not, lets end the discussion here, I assume you you've changed your mind.
LarsTheHonest 10 months ago
@williamguycoov have you read all this evidence for yourself? I doubt it, or you would not call it "overwhelming evidence", because my friend it is anything but :)
cattlexing 9 months ago
@williamguycoov Seriously? One of those is [potential] evidence for Jesus. There is by far and away MORE evidence for Caesar, and that even if you throw out the books he wrote, things like inscriptions form the time he lived, eye witness accounts to his deeds, and other contemporary accounts. The two possible historical witnesses for the life of Christ are The New Testament and [potentially] Josephus.
billb380 4 months ago
this Mark must be stopped, he's dangerous.
marcohorowitz8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God didn't make a damn thing. Stop lying.
calimagfan 1 year ago
God Job Mark.
allclear100 1 year ago