In this seris it speaks of turning defeat into victory.The Bible iiself speaks of guarding the body so the second deception isn't greater than the first as it waws put. I remember a joe citizec saying they didn't want this man's death to go to waste as he put it. So this is nothing novel or new. Believers could come up with counter thoughts. Folks accept by faith or not.
I thought that the seven headed dragon represents the seven churches. I think all of the churches would abuse, hurt, and take advantage of an apostle and whore them for money. I don't think that the church is a part of God. So yes, they died for nothing because the churches abuse apostles and misuse them for the church lies.
Thanks for your efforts. I agree with the main thrust of your argument, but it would be strengthened if you had negative controls for Paul's use of the word 'optanomai'. It does seem that within Paul's 7 undisputed letters, he uses the verb strictly to reference appearances of supernatural visions. Paul doesn't seem to use other verbs for 'to appear' like phantazo or epiphaino. He uses 'phaino' but not in reference to visions. Do you know of other verbs for "appear" that he uses conventionally?
I had wondered, maybe the stories were continuously exaggerated over time, and the more ridiculous they got, the more people were drawn to them. The way rumors do.
ProfMTH there are 3 ways to approach information - as a believer - one who believes despite evidence to the contrary. - as a skeptic - one who disbelieves despite evidence. And as an inquirer - one who weighs all the evidence objectively. You are presenting this information as a skeptic. You are purposefully finding "things" to cast doubt. For example around 4:39, you said it wasn't seeing jesus that caused them to go out - it was on the day of pentacost - but Jesus told them to wait until pent.
I have dealt with situations like this before. I have found that it is a complete waste of time trying to "refute" someone who is planning on holding on to their point till death do them part. It just doesn't seem worth it at all - so I wouldn't start. All I'll say is that you are building up a whole lot straw men arguments and tearing them down with great relish. One very common theme throughout ALL your series is that you harp upon the simple mistakes of christian writers past & present.
people with a very weak and fairly superficial understanding of scripture will buy your presentation hook line and sinker. (1) your prophecies of the crucifixtion harps upon simple mistakes of overzealous christians who misappropriate prophecies. It is educational but you completely ignored Daniel 9:24-27 the biggest, most signficicant prophecy of the MESSIAH. It tells the exact time HE arried on the scene, the crucifixtion, the destruction of Jerusalem, who destroys etc etc etc
(2) Regarding this series, you've spent an incredibly long time discussing the different names of the 12 disciples to create an atmosphere or doubt, before attempting to answer the question. This is a simple strategy of creating an atmosphere of doubt and intrigue. Simpleminded individuals will be affected by that doubt. My own father has several names and it was only when he was 85, that I sorted out his names. The disciples all seemed to have at least 2 different names. no issue there.
I feel sorry for the poor listener who is misguided by your attempts at bolstering your atheistic views. It is easy to be mislead by someone when you have little experience with the subject. Once again I don't think it makes any sense to try to refute or change your mind - because my experience is that -- people with your attitude have no plans to change their views -- despite any and all evidence presidented. Good luck and try Daniel chapter 9:24-27 - it is the cornerstone prophecy
-- LAST MESSAGE: While you investigate Daniel chapter 9:24-27 , please be aware of your attitude as you approach it. If you are approaching it with the mindset that your objective is to "find a way to disprove", then you are going to do so despite any evidence, despite hell or high water. Do your self a favor and look at these things Objectively, you just might see something you never saw before.
"I have found that it is a complete waste of time trying to 'refute' someone who is planning on holding on to their point till death do them part."
Translation: you can't refute it, but you'll pretend it's beneath you and a waste of your time to do it so that you don't have to admit that you can't. You may be fooling yourself here, Steflova -- though I doubt it -- but you're certainly not fooling me.
...long time" or not is, I guess, a matter of opinion. The Gospel of Matthew has Jesus say that his twelve apostles would one day "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel"; Ephesians 2:19-20 claims that the apostles are part of the "foundation" of "God's household"; and Revelation 21:14 claims that "the names of the twelve apostles" will be on the foundation of the wall of the New Jerusalem. Yet the New Testament doesn't have one consistent list of the names of these 12 men.
If I show you compelling evidence which demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah, a humanly observable representation of God who exists outside of time, space and matter as we know it, would you honestly accept it and change from becoming an atheist to a christian. Answer honestly please. Yes or no.
-----
And yes the bible has mistakes in it. Christians understand that is a record written by fallible men. Mistakes were evidenced by the # of angels at the resurrection.
Not all of them. In fact, not most of them, judging by the comments and video responses I get here. BTW, does the Christian god lack the ability and/or interest to protect his written communication to humankind from mistakes?
The Human Genome has thousands of mistakes/mutations in it but it still works.
- the theory of evolution has a whole lot of problems with it, right? But it still works for you doesn't it ? (a) Evolutionist learned about the pre-cambrian explosion and modified it to fit the theory right? (b) Evolutionist believes an asteroid hit the earth and killed every single dinosaur but someone my little pussy cat was able to survive it - you make that problem fit ur theory right?
Steflova2, clearly you are not able to address the actual topic of this video series, opting instead to wander off on various tangents. I'm not interested in the tangents and want be joining you as you wander. As I noted earlier, if you can refute the case I've laid out in this series, please do so. If you cannot, then we have nothing to discuss under this video. Thanks.
@steflova2 You admit the Bible has problems. I wouldn't have a problem if Christians did that, but they claim the Bible is with out an error of any kind.
@steflova2 The view held by 99.99 percent of scientists is that there are no major problems with the theory of evolution.
There were no pussy cats 65 million years ago. Their ancestors were small, enabling them to survive a shortage of food from the disruption of the food chain unlike large animals including the dinosaurs.
(1) There are very large saber tooth tigers in the fossil record right along side the dinosaurs. There are very many sites where both Saber Tooth tiger were buried together with dinosaurs in floods etc (2) The geological column is a mental construct. It exists no where in entirety (3) There is a real Creator.
@steflova2 I can't find any sources backing up your sabre tooth tiger claim, and I don't have any reason to take your word for it because you were uninformed enough to think that cats existed 65 million years ago.
@steflova2 No all dinosaurs died off. I'd like to refer you to Archaeopteryx. It's impossible to argue against ERVs, the chromosome fusion of human chromosome #2, the frame shift of the vitamin C synthesization gene that exists in primates and includes humans, ativisms, embryology, and so on.
There is no practicing biologist that does not believe in evolution. Even ID proponent Micheal Behe, who famously wrote against atheistic evolution, believes in evolution through natural selection.
@LukeShetler //There is no practicing biologist that does not believe in evolution. Even ID proponent Micheal Behe, who famously wrote against atheistic evolution, believes in evolution through natural selection.//
lol, wut? Evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. And behe supports intelligent design, not evolution.
@Drgamedood No he believes, for example, that we have a common ancestor with the apes. He generally believes in evolution but he doesn't believe certain parts of particulair animals could have arosen by natural selection and random mutation.
So basically, he believes that God sometimes had to intervene (push evolution in the right direction). Personally, I think that makes God's creation look imperfect.
even if they didn't die... the 12 certainly saw what they did to Jesus and that did not deture them from spreding his message ... it is quite likely they did die but they were at least willing to take that chance ... it's a mute point
Everyone dies, Sl0j0. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether they were martyred for claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead. As I demonstrate in this series, there is very little reason to believe they did.
Didn't demonstrate group hallucinations exist. DM-3 and DM-4 show group hallucinations are impossible, so whatever dissonance you may think occured it would depend on group hallucination.
Yes, your argument premises it for people don't willingly die for a lie. Clearly Paul said he met with James, Peter and John who testified to seeing Jesus alive from the dead. Since they didn't lie, they truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead physically.
I feel guilty watching this, as I wonder if I'm just reinforcing my beliefs, or am employing my own 'cognitive dissonance management.' I try to prevent myself whenever possible.
Yet I feel no dissonance in my disbelief of religion. I only suffered from it while I was growing up Christian.
'It takes faith,' they say. Faith in God? No, faith in man. Faith in self-proclaimed holymen. History has utterly shredded my faith in such things.
First, the attribution of the fourth gospel to John is merely a matter of tradition. Second, if one accepts the traditional attributions of gospel authorship, then it would be John *and* Matthew who were with Jesus.
im probably going to get burned here, but the Catholic Tradition, which historically, in founding, precedes the protestant community, doesn't have Matthew as a member.
while its not enough evidence to sway me one way or another, i can tell you put a lot of time into this.
there r 2 parts of holy sprit people get 1 is being reborn then theres 1 of power 2 different things, it affected paul internally he didnt try to discibe what happened duh!, same thing with james they said 1 sentence not trying to decribe all that happened, lack of eveidence doesnt prove details didnt happened if they had a chapter of details descibing what happened & it disagreed with other parts of the bible then there could be a contradictions, theology & politics in judaism were the same
i suck at typing, theres a spirit of rebirth, & also a spirit of power that comes later on a person, they r 2 different words in hebrew: politics & religion in were too intermixed to be seperated most of the time - the roman emporer - the head politician- thought he was god: there is no contradiction where in 1 place his death is described in detail & another they didnt try to- they wre trying to make a different point, u cant restate everything evrytime- books would be 100 pages then
Oh, sorry to annoy you once again, but I just found this in a nanosecond on the world wide web. So aggravating what you can get cheap and easy these days.
Babylon Talmud: Tractate Shabbath Folio 116 a-b. Do you want me to cut and paste it for you?
Matthew is Levi. He was a tax collector. He was educated and able to write in a form of short-hand, what we believe to be vebatim the sermon on the mount. He knew Jewish tradition and history throughly. He desplayed more interest what Jesus wrote about wealth than any other apostle.
Of the Muratorian fragment, (200 CE) we know that Luke and John are listed. John was named. Matthew and Mark would have been the first two.
"He was educated and able to write in a form of short-hand...."
And how do you know this? What is the basis for the claim that educated people wrote in shorthand in the 1st century C.E.? And even if they could, how would that single out Matthew as author here?
"He knew Jewish tradition and history thoroughly."
Whoever wrote Matthew was actually rather weak on Jewish tradition and history as demonstrated by his many mistakes and fabrications. I discuss this in some detail in my...
..."Jesus Was Not the Messiah" series. In any case, even if the author of Matthew demonstrated such expertise in the pages of his gospel, that wouldn't point to Matthew alone. There were *loads* of experts on Jewish tradition and history. So, again, how does this identify Matthew the apostle?
"He displayed more interest about what Jesus wrote about wealth than any other apostle."
First, let's be clear: Jesus wrote nothing. Second, how do you measure this assertion? More interest...
"...the Muratorian fragment (200 CE) we know that Luke and John are named. Matthew and Mark would have been the first two."
So you believe. But that fragment doesn't say that. More importantly, the fragment is, as you noted, from the 2nd century C.E. So the traditional attributions of the gospels had already started to take hold.
"The earliest manuscripts of Matthew have the title KATA MAOOAION 'According to Matthew'."
Scribal notations. Are you kidding me with this shit, Questioningall? Maybe this sort of stuff works with rubes who know nothing about these matters, but it won't work with me.
"Even Gamaliel...."
Still waiting for the date and Talmudic citation to Gamaliel's purported parody of the gospel attributed to Matthew.
This is from United Jerusalem News Today "Talmud Confirms an Early Gospel of Matthew." 12/13/2003
..But a literary tale dated by some scholars at 72 A.D. or earlier, which comes from an ancient collection of Jewish writings known as the Talmud, quotes brief passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew. "
You're giving me a reprint of an opinion piece, Questioningall. I'm not interested in that. I asked you for the TALMUDIC CITATION to this purported parody of Matthew by Gamaliel. Do you have a citation to the Talmud? If yes, provide it. If not, just say so.
Moreover, I also asked you whether you've ever read this purported parody. Have you? Yes or no.
"In his 1999 book, Passover And Easter: Origin And History To Modern Times, Israel Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew
University says that Rabban Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars in about 70 A.D., is "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."
I know all about Yuval's claim, Questioningall. Again, I've asked you for a TALMUDIC CITATION to this purported parody of Matthew. Do you have a Talmudic citation? Yes or no. If yes, please provide it. If no, then say you do not.
What I want is what I have asked you for numerous times and you still have not provided, i.e., a TALMUDIC CITATION to this purported parody. Do you have one? If yes, provide it. If not, then say you lack a citation. Stop with the bullshit and answer the question you have been asked, Questioningall. Got it?
Here in the comments under this video is where I've kept asking your for one. How odd that you need a few days to find it. I should think you would have read and studied it before posting it here as evidence for your claims about Matthew. Clearly, however, you're just a scam artist posting bullshit he finds on the Internet.
So the scribal notations (saying that's what they are) of first century Christians, who were contempories of the events of the day are less believable than 21st century cynics, who are second guessing from a seat of 2100 years away?
What first century Christians are you talking about?! Give the dates for these manuscripts and source your claim. Your penchant for bullshit and posting things you've seen on the Internet is becoming increasingly annoying.
Since our scheme of time went from year -1 to 1, you mean to tell us that these events occurred in 92 BC? You are attempting to exaggerate how much time has elapsed, lamely. It is not 2100 years away.
"Cynics" to you must be those who assert the wholly human origin of all that is human. If that is a cynic, sign me up. You mean to tell me that ancient man was also liable to be duped by psychological effects of whose existence he was not aware? That's so hard to believe for you, huh?
As I mentioned previously and am still waiting for you to reply to, the internal evidence is that John had to be written before 70 CE, because it mentioned the pool of Siloam in present tense
Ok prof, and please do ask me for the citation! In the Talmud there is a parody of the gospel of Matthew written by Gamaliel. Since we know when Gamaliel died, it has to be before that date. In addition, in order for people to "get" a parody, the primary source would have had to have been around long enough to be distributed through the population. We now know that Matthew was written before 70 CE
"In the Talmud there is a parody of the gospel of Matthew written by Gamaliel."
Is there? Where in the Talmud? Please provide a citation. Have you read this alleged parody? Either way, I'd like the citation to this alleged paraody in the Talmud. Thanks.
Whaaaaaaat??? Matthew was an apostle. (Remember Matthew? He was one of the eleven who procceded to Galilee and when they saw Jesus they worshiped him. He wrote about it in his gospel, which was a first hand account?
Does the apostle John ring any bells at all? He wrote a gospel of his eye-witness account, of the resurrection as well. He saw him all over the place. You mentioned one place yourself?
Be honest, have you bothered to read the bible at all?
There is no evidence that Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, and there is almost no evidence that John wrote the gospel attributed to him. What scant evidence there is about John is largely dubious. Learn the facts before you speak, Questioningall.
John names himself in the gospel of John. Matthew doesn't name himself, but the internal evidence indicates that a man of his background was the author. Both gospels were written before 70 CE, so eyewitnesses to the accounts in each gospel could attest to the integrity of the reports. If both texts would have been a pack of lies, contemporaries of that time would have tossed both texts, and bye-bye Christianity!
For that matter eyewitnesses handed the texts down as written by these men.
"Oops, you're right. John identifies himself as the disciple that Jesus loved. see John 21:20-24."
Well, you're getting closer, which is progress. Have a look at verse 24. Mention of "the disciple who bears witness of these things" is in the 3rd person singular, while the narrator is in the 1st person plural ("we know that his witness is true"). That's not a person identifying himself. Rather, it's several people claiming they procured the John's testimony of the episode just described.
So what if Jesus breathed on the apostles and said "receive the Spirit?"
They didn't receive it then.
The exact same author quoted Jesus as saying ""But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, The Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you (John 16:7)
I have no idea what rofl stands for and please don't tell me. The fact of the matter that the apostles did receive the H.S. on the day of Pentacost. Why would you think Jesus was a liar?--because it didn't happen when He breathed on them?
Your claim that the apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 makes Jesus -- at least the Jesus of John's gospel -- out to be liar. "[Jesus] breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'"
You can just put James right back up there, Professor, because this is why Herod laid hands on him. He "belonged to the church" Acts 12:1. Then he saw it pleased the Jews, well, duh!
If he was an apostle of the church, what do you think he was teaching? Knitting classes?"
The job of the eleven is written, clearly, in Matthew 28:19-20.
That is why James was killed. You can't argue that James might have recanted, but he didn't have a chance. What kind of arguement is that?
As I explained in the video, Questioningall, Herod had in his jurisdiction people who were preaching allegiance to a man who was executed because he had claimed to be king of the Jews -- Herod's title. Let that information soak in a bit.
I heard that KabaneTheChristian was going to debate you over this issue as well as others. Good luck with that he is one the closeminded apologist I seen.
Actually, if I recall correctly, Kabane said he wasn't interested in the "die for a lie" series. He's looking to respond to my series about Jesus not being the messiah.
they had to get back to work since their free bread,fish, and wine guy died. they couldn't magically make fish appear for themselves, it was time to move on.
Why cross James off? Certianly he knew his life was in danger. Stephen had been killed already and a great persecution had began with Saul (Paul) spearheading it. Many christians had been thrown in prison. Certianly he knew his belief could mean death, especailly since he was a prominent figure.
Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jeruslem before they go to preach until they receive the batism on the Holy Spirit. That's why they don't go preach right away (Acts 1:4). Also the 'condratiction' you spoke of is easily understood. the disciples regeneration experience is in the book of John when Christ breathes on them and the baptism of power for ministry is in the book of Acts. Its two seperate experiences.
"Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jeruslem before they go to preach until they receive the batism on the Holy Spirit. That's why they don't go preach right away...."
According to John 20:22, they had already received the Holy Spirit from Jesus on the evening of the day he had been raised from the dead.
""the disciples regeneration experience is in the book of John when Christ breathes on them and the baptism of power for ministry is in the book of Acts. Its two seperate experiences."
Well, that's what one has to say in order to reconcile two very different stories. However, it's nothing more than an imposition on the texts, neither of which says anything remotely like that.
Its either what one has to say or its just as simple as I mentioned. The same thing happened to Jesus. Although He was born of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit came upon Him after He was baptized by John the baptist (Mt 3:13-16) It was only then that He began His ministry.
Just paying devil's advocate (or God's advocate, I suppose), but it seems obvious to me that when Acts says Herod "stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church", then has him killing James, and then has him arresting Peter, the author is obviously saying that they are sacrificing themselves for Christ. It seems irrelevant to focus on the Roman's motivation instead of James and Peter's.
The antisemitism of the passage and the truthfullness are other matters, of course.
yeah, strange isn't it? 40 days before Jesus leaves..versus 1 or 2 days after seeing Jesus.. There's always answer out there for these descrepancies. I am just dismayed honestly because if this is the way God set up to reach humanity-the story written the way it is with many appearing contradictions, God set up many stumbling blocks.
Amusing how cognitive dissonance seems itself to be subject to cognitive dissonance, being denied whenever it plays a significant role in belief maintenance. I enjoyed your analysis, and thanks for the fascinating linked article.
On a side note, poor Cardinal Avery Dulles looked as though he was hanging in the clip you show. Perhaps an apt metaphor for his argument...
Thanks very much, Qualia. I've had an insanely busy six weeks, but with the worst of it gone by, I had time to get parts 6 through 8 (the conclusion) edited and uploaded.
Now I need to just watch some other people's latest work. You're going to be first on my list, my friend. :-)
Yo Prof! Whatever happened to part 6? I've been jonesin for it over a month now. Where's it at? Will it be the epic finale of the series or will there be another wait for the eventual part 7? Hope to see some new stuff soon.
"I don't think that congnitive dissonance really explains all religious experience...."
Good. I don't claim that it does, nor does Dr. Dawson in his article. Come on, Vidgazer, time to step up your game by paying attention to what is *actually* being said.
vid, cogni. dis. is not necessarily linked to religion. It is just a very strong mechanism we humans have. It helps explain how people stick to beliefs (of a religious or of a different nature) despite evidence to the contrary. This is not done on purpose, and we are all doing it, one way or another.
Prof (pbuh) does not use say every religious experience is cog dis, but cites examples were a prophesy failed.
This shows that is possible that Jesus' followers developed a narrative too.
"At least this would be a reason to quit if they knew Jesus had not resurrected."
I strongly encourage you to go back to the part of this series in which I discuss congnitive dissonance. It's not my argument here that "they knew Jesus had not resurrected."
"Have you ever thought about doing a legal response to the claims of Simon Greenleaf."
Wow, I haven't even thought about Simon Greenleaf in a very long time, but it's quite appropriate that you've mentioned his name here. He is one of the fathers, as it were, of the type of apologetics to which I'm responding here -- the Lee Strobel of his time, as it were. I haven't thought about doing a response to his stuff, but I certainly will consider it. Great idea, BarryLeder.
Hey Prof, while you're at it, I'm wondering if you have any interest in the so-called "miracles" and how they all have that "the dog ate my homework" characteristic in that you can't confirm they happened. No permanent record was left behind.
Where's the wine? We drank it.
Loaves & fishes? Eaten.
Healed people? Dead.
Lazarus? Re-dead.
Jesus resurrection? In heaven where he's invisible.
Bullshit. They were chosen BECAUSE you can't verify them.
ProthMTH's work is just so important and just so good. It's obvious that the people who believe in this nonsense have never really read the bible. I find it impossible to read what the bible actually says, then believe that all this bullshit is the absolute truth!
Once again you take apologists to task for assertions all to often taken for granted as slam dunks. I wish their readers would be required to hear such arguments immediately afterward...and demonstrate that they understood. Well done ProfMTH!
I really enjoyed this series. While, I think you did adress it, I found the whole distinction between dying for a "belief" being different from dying because of "knowledge" so problematic that I wonder why anyone could stick to this argument. It seems like there are so many better arguments to make.
Wow. Very well done, Prof. Very insightful. I'm in awe of how thorough you are. And I'm glad I am now of a mind that is free and willing to listen. Thank you as always. I can't wait for part six.
Don't spam my channel with links to William Lane Craig's video, Dino. As I told you after you posted this the first time, I've already heard Dr. Craig's arguments on this.
I can't stand that Dr. Craig idiot. He is so arrogant. It is very ironic that a man who believes in archaic fairy tales thinks he is so much more intelligent than all of the rationalists he debates. Craig drives me insane.
I look forward to part six. The quality of your videos is impecable. You do the entire rationalist community a tremendous service with the time and dedication you put into your videos. Thank you.
Yes, you're more than welcome. I apologize for commenting way off topic. This video series is a great one, and I can't wait for part six. I see your editing skills are coming along nicely and that your good looks are holding firm!
Man, I just got censored for the first time by a theist. It was a 10 Q's every atheist must answer vid. In it, the speaker asserted that atheists claim to not believe in God simply because they don't WANT God to exist. I simply pointed out that the speaker himself would be right to be incensed if a Muslim asserted that the speaker disregarded Mohammad for a similar reason. Result? Immediate deletion of my comment. I hate this! Go, Prof, go! Keep kicking out the quality!
Eh, the giant Jesus was *so* done long before old Oral came along, specifically, in the so-called Gospel of Peter, which, in addition to a giant Jesus, has a talking cross.
In this seris it speaks of turning defeat into victory.The Bible iiself speaks of guarding the body so the second deception isn't greater than the first as it waws put. I remember a joe citizec saying they didn't want this man's death to go to waste as he put it. So this is nothing novel or new. Believers could come up with counter thoughts. Folks accept by faith or not.
archiethomas1000 2 months ago
I thought that the seven headed dragon represents the seven churches. I think all of the churches would abuse, hurt, and take advantage of an apostle and whore them for money. I don't think that the church is a part of God. So yes, they died for nothing because the churches abuse apostles and misuse them for the church lies.
71jav 4 months ago
More ppl have seen alien ufos than jesus...
Yahweigh 7 months ago
@Yahweigh How do you know how many UFOs Jesus saw?
Strangerinasland 2 months ago
@Strangerinasland derp
Yahweigh 2 months ago
@Yahweigh Is that UFO lingo?
Strangerinasland 2 months ago
Thanks for your efforts. I agree with the main thrust of your argument, but it would be strengthened if you had negative controls for Paul's use of the word 'optanomai'. It does seem that within Paul's 7 undisputed letters, he uses the verb strictly to reference appearances of supernatural visions. Paul doesn't seem to use other verbs for 'to appear' like phantazo or epiphaino. He uses 'phaino' but not in reference to visions. Do you know of other verbs for "appear" that he uses conventionally?
myerssa7 9 months ago
I had wondered, maybe the stories were continuously exaggerated over time, and the more ridiculous they got, the more people were drawn to them. The way rumors do.
OptimisticCynic715 1 year ago
ProfMTH there are 3 ways to approach information - as a believer - one who believes despite evidence to the contrary. - as a skeptic - one who disbelieves despite evidence. And as an inquirer - one who weighs all the evidence objectively. You are presenting this information as a skeptic. You are purposefully finding "things" to cast doubt. For example around 4:39, you said it wasn't seeing jesus that caused them to go out - it was on the day of pentacost - but Jesus told them to wait until pent.
steflova2 2 years ago
"You are purposely finding 'things' to cast doubt."
If you can refute the case I've laid out in this series, Steflova2, then do so.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I have dealt with situations like this before. I have found that it is a complete waste of time trying to "refute" someone who is planning on holding on to their point till death do them part. It just doesn't seem worth it at all - so I wouldn't start. All I'll say is that you are building up a whole lot straw men arguments and tearing them down with great relish. One very common theme throughout ALL your series is that you harp upon the simple mistakes of christian writers past & present.
steflova2 2 years ago
people with a very weak and fairly superficial understanding of scripture will buy your presentation hook line and sinker. (1) your prophecies of the crucifixtion harps upon simple mistakes of overzealous christians who misappropriate prophecies. It is educational but you completely ignored Daniel 9:24-27 the biggest, most signficicant prophecy of the MESSIAH. It tells the exact time HE arried on the scene, the crucifixtion, the destruction of Jerusalem, who destroys etc etc etc
steflova2 2 years ago
(2) Regarding this series, you've spent an incredibly long time discussing the different names of the 12 disciples to create an atmosphere or doubt, before attempting to answer the question. This is a simple strategy of creating an atmosphere of doubt and intrigue. Simpleminded individuals will be affected by that doubt. My own father has several names and it was only when he was 85, that I sorted out his names. The disciples all seemed to have at least 2 different names. no issue there.
steflova2 2 years ago
I feel sorry for the poor listener who is misguided by your attempts at bolstering your atheistic views. It is easy to be mislead by someone when you have little experience with the subject. Once again I don't think it makes any sense to try to refute or change your mind - because my experience is that -- people with your attitude have no plans to change their views -- despite any and all evidence presidented. Good luck and try Daniel chapter 9:24-27 - it is the cornerstone prophecy
steflova2 2 years ago
-- LAST MESSAGE: While you investigate Daniel chapter 9:24-27 , please be aware of your attitude as you approach it. If you are approaching it with the mindset that your objective is to "find a way to disprove", then you are going to do so despite any evidence, despite hell or high water. Do your self a favor and look at these things Objectively, you just might see something you never saw before.
steflova2 2 years ago
"I have found that it is a complete waste of time trying to 'refute' someone who is planning on holding on to their point till death do them part."
Translation: you can't refute it, but you'll pretend it's beneath you and a waste of your time to do it so that you don't have to admit that you can't. You may be fooling yourself here, Steflova -- though I doubt it -- but you're certainly not fooling me.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"All I'll say is that you are building up a whole lot straw men arguments"
That's nothing but a claim. Unless and until you can demonstrate that I've used straw arguments here, you've shown nothing.
"Daniel 9:24-27 the biggest, most signficicant prophecy of the MESSIAH"
This series isn't about messianic prophecies, Steflova. Are you even paying attention?
"you've spent an incredibly long time discussing the different names of the 12 disciples"
Whether it was an "incredibly...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...long time" or not is, I guess, a matter of opinion. The Gospel of Matthew has Jesus say that his twelve apostles would one day "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel"; Ephesians 2:19-20 claims that the apostles are part of the "foundation" of "God's household"; and Revelation 21:14 claims that "the names of the twelve apostles" will be on the foundation of the wall of the New Jerusalem. Yet the New Testament doesn't have one consistent list of the names of these 12 men.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
That is, at the VERY least, exceedingly odd since they are, according to your holy book, 12 of the most important people who ever lived.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
QUESTION:
If I show you compelling evidence which demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah, a humanly observable representation of God who exists outside of time, space and matter as we know it, would you honestly accept it and change from becoming an atheist to a christian. Answer honestly please. Yes or no.
-----
And yes the bible has mistakes in it. Christians understand that is a record written by fallible men. Mistakes were evidenced by the # of angels at the resurrection.
steflova2 2 years ago
"And yes the bible has mistakes in it."
Then stop bitching about my pointing them out.
"Christians understand that..."
Not all of them. In fact, not most of them, judging by the comments and video responses I get here. BTW, does the Christian god lack the ability and/or interest to protect his written communication to humankind from mistakes?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The Human Genome has thousands of mistakes/mutations in it but it still works.
- the theory of evolution has a whole lot of problems with it, right? But it still works for you doesn't it ? (a) Evolutionist learned about the pre-cambrian explosion and modified it to fit the theory right? (b) Evolutionist believes an asteroid hit the earth and killed every single dinosaur but someone my little pussy cat was able to survive it - you make that problem fit ur theory right?
steflova2 2 years ago
Steflova2, clearly you are not able to address the actual topic of this video series, opting instead to wander off on various tangents. I'm not interested in the tangents and want be joining you as you wander. As I noted earlier, if you can refute the case I've laid out in this series, please do so. If you cannot, then we have nothing to discuss under this video. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@steflova2 You admit the Bible has problems. I wouldn't have a problem if Christians did that, but they claim the Bible is with out an error of any kind.
Abena20 1 year ago
@steflova2 The view held by 99.99 percent of scientists is that there are no major problems with the theory of evolution.
There were no pussy cats 65 million years ago. Their ancestors were small, enabling them to survive a shortage of food from the disruption of the food chain unlike large animals including the dinosaurs.
RomansPwnedJesus 1 year ago
@RomansPwnedJesus
(1) There are very large saber tooth tigers in the fossil record right along side the dinosaurs. There are very many sites where both Saber Tooth tiger were buried together with dinosaurs in floods etc (2) The geological column is a mental construct. It exists no where in entirety (3) There is a real Creator.
steflova2 1 year ago
@steflova2 I can't find any sources backing up your sabre tooth tiger claim, and I don't have any reason to take your word for it because you were uninformed enough to think that cats existed 65 million years ago.
RomansPwnedJesus 1 year ago
@steflova2 No all dinosaurs died off. I'd like to refer you to Archaeopteryx. It's impossible to argue against ERVs, the chromosome fusion of human chromosome #2, the frame shift of the vitamin C synthesization gene that exists in primates and includes humans, ativisms, embryology, and so on.
There is no practicing biologist that does not believe in evolution. Even ID proponent Micheal Behe, who famously wrote against atheistic evolution, believes in evolution through natural selection.
LukeShetler 1 year ago
@LukeShetler //There is no practicing biologist that does not believe in evolution. Even ID proponent Micheal Behe, who famously wrote against atheistic evolution, believes in evolution through natural selection.//
lol, wut? Evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. And behe supports intelligent design, not evolution.
Drgamedood 1 year ago
@Drgamedood No he believes, for example, that we have a common ancestor with the apes. He generally believes in evolution but he doesn't believe certain parts of particulair animals could have arosen by natural selection and random mutation.
So basically, he believes that God sometimes had to intervene (push evolution in the right direction). Personally, I think that makes God's creation look imperfect.
WorstmetJus91 11 months ago
@Drgamedood "lol, wut? Evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. And behe supports intelligent design, not evolution"
A simple Google search quickly showed me that Michael Behe supports ID & evolution.
Strangerinasland 2 months ago
@Strangerinasland He accepts common descent, but not the Darwinian mechanism that drives evolution.
Drgamedood 2 months ago
4:50 wtf
MartianSpore 2 years ago
even if they didn't die... the 12 certainly saw what they did to Jesus and that did not deture them from spreding his message ... it is quite likely they did die but they were at least willing to take that chance ... it's a mute point
sl0j0 2 years ago
"it is quite likely they did die"
Everyone dies, Sl0j0. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether they were martyred for claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead. As I demonstrate in this series, there is very little reason to believe they did.
"it's a mute point"
The word you want there is 'moot'.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
my bad ... moot ....I meant they at least where willing to spread the message around enough to risk their lives for a lie...
sl0j0 2 years ago
Didn't demonstrate group hallucinations exist. DM-3 and DM-4 show group hallucinations are impossible, so whatever dissonance you may think occured it would depend on group hallucination.
Parture 2 years ago
@Parture
I said nothing about "group hallucination." My argument is in no way premised on it.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Yes, your argument premises it for people don't willingly die for a lie. Clearly Paul said he met with James, Peter and John who testified to seeing Jesus alive from the dead. Since they didn't lie, they truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead physically.
Parture 2 years ago
Muy buen video!
Heavensmessenger 2 years ago
Gracias. :-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The contradiction part was quite funny, lol.
I feel guilty watching this, as I wonder if I'm just reinforcing my beliefs, or am employing my own 'cognitive dissonance management.' I try to prevent myself whenever possible.
Yet I feel no dissonance in my disbelief of religion. I only suffered from it while I was growing up Christian.
'It takes faith,' they say. Faith in God? No, faith in man. Faith in self-proclaimed holymen. History has utterly shredded my faith in such things.
LukeShetler 2 years ago
The truth is liberating. Thanks for the comment, LukeShetler.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
and John? he was the only gospel writer who was with jesus.
4lifejackhammer 2 years ago
First, the attribution of the fourth gospel to John is merely a matter of tradition. Second, if one accepts the traditional attributions of gospel authorship, then it would be John *and* Matthew who were with Jesus.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
im probably going to get burned here, but the Catholic Tradition, which historically, in founding, precedes the protestant community, doesn't have Matthew as a member.
while its not enough evidence to sway me one way or another, i can tell you put a lot of time into this.
4lifejackhammer 2 years ago
Catholic Tradition "doesn't have Matthew as a memeber" of what ... the apostles? If so, wherever did you get that idea from?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
there r 2 parts of holy sprit people get 1 is being reborn then theres 1 of power 2 different things, it affected paul internally he didnt try to discibe what happened duh!, same thing with james they said 1 sentence not trying to decribe all that happened, lack of eveidence doesnt prove details didnt happened if they had a chapter of details descibing what happened & it disagreed with other parts of the bible then there could be a contradictions, theology & politics in judaism were the same
iseecheese 2 years ago
I have no idea what you're struggling to say here, Iseecheese.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
i suck at typing, theres a spirit of rebirth, & also a spirit of power that comes later on a person, they r 2 different words in hebrew: politics & religion in were too intermixed to be seperated most of the time - the roman emporer - the head politician- thought he was god: there is no contradiction where in 1 place his death is described in detail & another they didnt try to- they wre trying to make a different point, u cant restate everything evrytime- books would be 100 pages then
iseecheese 2 years ago
Oh, sorry to annoy you once again, but I just found this in a nanosecond on the world wide web. So aggravating what you can get cheap and easy these days.
Babylon Talmud: Tractate Shabbath Folio 116 a-b. Do you want me to cut and paste it for you?
questioningall 2 years ago
"Bablyon Talmud: Tractate Shabbath Folio 116 a-b"
Quote the part(s) that you claim constitute this "parody" of the Gospel of Matthew.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
He said "Receive the Spirit" He didn't say Receive it right this minute. He had clearly told them that the H.S. would come after He was gone.
questioningall 2 years ago
"He said 'Receive the Spirit.' He didn't say Receive it right this minute."
Wow. Just when I think I've seen every apologetic pretzel a believer could possibly twist him- or herself into, along comes a new one.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Matthew is Levi. He was a tax collector. He was educated and able to write in a form of short-hand, what we believe to be vebatim the sermon on the mount. He knew Jewish tradition and history throughly. He desplayed more interest what Jesus wrote about wealth than any other apostle.
Of the Muratorian fragment, (200 CE) we know that Luke and John are listed. John was named. Matthew and Mark would have been the first two.
questioningall 2 years ago
"He was educated and able to write in a form of short-hand...."
And how do you know this? What is the basis for the claim that educated people wrote in shorthand in the 1st century C.E.? And even if they could, how would that single out Matthew as author here?
"He knew Jewish tradition and history thoroughly."
Whoever wrote Matthew was actually rather weak on Jewish tradition and history as demonstrated by his many mistakes and fabrications. I discuss this in some detail in my...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
..."Jesus Was Not the Messiah" series. In any case, even if the author of Matthew demonstrated such expertise in the pages of his gospel, that wouldn't point to Matthew alone. There were *loads* of experts on Jewish tradition and history. So, again, how does this identify Matthew the apostle?
"He displayed more interest about what Jesus wrote about wealth than any other apostle."
First, let's be clear: Jesus wrote nothing. Second, how do you measure this assertion? More interest...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...than whom? Please be specific.
"...the Muratorian fragment (200 CE) we know that Luke and John are named. Matthew and Mark would have been the first two."
So you believe. But that fragment doesn't say that. More importantly, the fragment is, as you noted, from the 2nd century C.E. So the traditional attributions of the gospels had already started to take hold.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oh, sorry you're right. I should have written 'what Jesus taught'
The earliest manuscripts of Matthew have the title KATA MAOOAION "According to Matthew.
We have no early manuscripts indicating that Matthew was in error about Jewish history.
He was the most widely quoted by church fathers.
Papias, Iraneus, Origen and Panaeus all attribute the gospel to Matthew..
Even Gamaliel only mocked the Christian philosophy, not the historical facts
questioningall 2 years ago
"The earliest manuscripts of Matthew have the title KATA MAOOAION 'According to Matthew'."
Scribal notations. Are you kidding me with this shit, Questioningall? Maybe this sort of stuff works with rubes who know nothing about these matters, but it won't work with me.
"Even Gamaliel...."
Still waiting for the date and Talmudic citation to Gamaliel's purported parody of the gospel attributed to Matthew.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
This is from United Jerusalem News Today "Talmud Confirms an Early Gospel of Matthew." 12/13/2003
..But a literary tale dated by some scholars at 72 A.D. or earlier, which comes from an ancient collection of Jewish writings known as the Talmud, quotes brief passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew. "
questioningall 2 years ago
"Talmud Confirms an Early Gospel of Matthew"
You're giving me a reprint of an opinion piece, Questioningall. I'm not interested in that. I asked you for the TALMUDIC CITATION to this purported parody of Matthew by Gamaliel. Do you have a citation to the Talmud? If yes, provide it. If not, just say so.
Moreover, I also asked you whether you've ever read this purported parody. Have you? Yes or no.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
More of the same:
"In his 1999 book, Passover And Easter: Origin And History To Modern Times, Israel Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew
University says that Rabban Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars in about 70 A.D., is "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."
questioningall 2 years ago
I know all about Yuval's claim, Questioningall. Again, I've asked you for a TALMUDIC CITATION to this purported parody of Matthew. Do you have a Talmudic citation? Yes or no. If yes, please provide it. If no, then say you do not.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
want more?
questioningall 2 years ago
"want more?"
What I want is what I have asked you for numerous times and you still have not provided, i.e., a TALMUDIC CITATION to this purported parody. Do you have one? If yes, provide it. If not, then say you lack a citation. Stop with the bullshit and answer the question you have been asked, Questioningall. Got it?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You'll have to give me a few days on that one. And no, I don't find in any of my mail accounts that you keep asking me for one.
questioningall 2 years ago
Here in the comments under this video is where I've kept asking your for one. How odd that you need a few days to find it. I should think you would have read and studied it before posting it here as evidence for your claims about Matthew. Clearly, however, you're just a scam artist posting bullshit he finds on the Internet.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
So the scribal notations (saying that's what they are) of first century Christians, who were contempories of the events of the day are less believable than 21st century cynics, who are second guessing from a seat of 2100 years away?
questioningall 2 years ago
What first century Christians are you talking about?! Give the dates for these manuscripts and source your claim. Your penchant for bullshit and posting things you've seen on the Internet is becoming increasingly annoying.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Since our scheme of time went from year -1 to 1, you mean to tell us that these events occurred in 92 BC? You are attempting to exaggerate how much time has elapsed, lamely. It is not 2100 years away.
"Cynics" to you must be those who assert the wholly human origin of all that is human. If that is a cynic, sign me up. You mean to tell me that ancient man was also liable to be duped by psychological effects of whose existence he was not aware? That's so hard to believe for you, huh?
Uroshnor 2 years ago
As I mentioned previously and am still waiting for you to reply to, the internal evidence is that John had to be written before 70 CE, because it mentioned the pool of Siloam in present tense
questioningall 2 years ago
Ah, yes, I didn't have a chance to look at the article you provided. I will. Not to worry.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Ok prof, and please do ask me for the citation! In the Talmud there is a parody of the gospel of Matthew written by Gamaliel. Since we know when Gamaliel died, it has to be before that date. In addition, in order for people to "get" a parody, the primary source would have had to have been around long enough to be distributed through the population. We now know that Matthew was written before 70 CE
questioningall 2 years ago
"In the Talmud there is a parody of the gospel of Matthew written by Gamaliel."
Is there? Where in the Talmud? Please provide a citation. Have you read this alleged parody? Either way, I'd like the citation to this alleged paraody in the Talmud. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Whaaaaaaat??? Matthew was an apostle. (Remember Matthew? He was one of the eleven who procceded to Galilee and when they saw Jesus they worshiped him. He wrote about it in his gospel, which was a first hand account?
Does the apostle John ring any bells at all? He wrote a gospel of his eye-witness account, of the resurrection as well. He saw him all over the place. You mentioned one place yourself?
Be honest, have you bothered to read the bible at all?
questioningall 2 years ago
There is no evidence that Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, and there is almost no evidence that John wrote the gospel attributed to him. What scant evidence there is about John is largely dubious. Learn the facts before you speak, Questioningall.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
John names himself in the gospel of John. Matthew doesn't name himself, but the internal evidence indicates that a man of his background was the author. Both gospels were written before 70 CE, so eyewitnesses to the accounts in each gospel could attest to the integrity of the reports. If both texts would have been a pack of lies, contemporaries of that time would have tossed both texts, and bye-bye Christianity!
For that matter eyewitnesses handed the texts down as written by these men.
questioningall 2 years ago
"John names himself in the gospel of John."
Really? Please do tell where he does this. Thanks.
"Matthew doesn't name himself, but the internal evidence indicates that a man of his background was the author."
What "internal evidence"? And what exactly do you understand Matthew's background to have been?
"Both gospels were written before 70 C.E....."
The gospel attributed to John certainly was not written before 70 C.E. As for Matthew, you've got some scholarly soil in which...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...to plant that claim, but the primary opinion is that Matthew was written later.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oops you're right. John identifies himself as the disciple that Jesus loved. see John 21:20-24,
questioningall 2 years ago
"Oops, you're right. John identifies himself as the disciple that Jesus loved. see John 21:20-24."
Well, you're getting closer, which is progress. Have a look at verse 24. Mention of "the disciple who bears witness of these things" is in the 3rd person singular, while the narrator is in the 1st person plural ("we know that his witness is true"). That's not a person identifying himself. Rather, it's several people claiming they procured the John's testimony of the episode just described.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
So what if Jesus breathed on the apostles and said "receive the Spirit?"
They didn't receive it then.
The exact same author quoted Jesus as saying ""But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, The Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you (John 16:7)
questioningall 2 years ago
"So what if Jesus breathed on the apostles and said, 'Receive the Spirit?' They didn't receive it then."
ROFL! So Jesus lied to them, is that it?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I have no idea what rofl stands for and please don't tell me. The fact of the matter that the apostles did receive the H.S. on the day of Pentacost. Why would you think Jesus was a liar?--because it didn't happen when He breathed on them?
questioningall 2 years ago
Your claim that the apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 makes Jesus -- at least the Jesus of John's gospel -- out to be liar. "[Jesus] breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'"
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You can just put James right back up there, Professor, because this is why Herod laid hands on him. He "belonged to the church" Acts 12:1. Then he saw it pleased the Jews, well, duh!
If he was an apostle of the church, what do you think he was teaching? Knitting classes?"
The job of the eleven is written, clearly, in Matthew 28:19-20.
That is why James was killed. You can't argue that James might have recanted, but he didn't have a chance. What kind of arguement is that?
questioningall 2 years ago
As I explained in the video, Questioningall, Herod had in his jurisdiction people who were preaching allegiance to a man who was executed because he had claimed to be king of the Jews -- Herod's title. Let that information soak in a bit.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I heard that KabaneTheChristian was going to debate you over this issue as well as others. Good luck with that he is one the closeminded apologist I seen.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
Actually, if I recall correctly, Kabane said he wasn't interested in the "die for a lie" series. He's looking to respond to my series about Jesus not being the messiah.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
My mistake. Still though he is just going to make a series and just declare himself the victor like always.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
supreme videos
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
comments = more "related videos" links. i dont mind pimping shit that is worth it. (wow, so gangsta). :) (no need to reply)
Neeboopsh 2 years ago
wen't fishing immediatly after their saviour died?
that sounds like some of my redkneck friends!
"Well.. shit.. now what?" "We might as well go fishing!"
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
lol
ProfMTH 2 years ago
they had to get back to work since their free bread,fish, and wine guy died. they couldn't magically make fish appear for themselves, it was time to move on.
TheEvolver311 2 years ago
Why cross James off? Certianly he knew his life was in danger. Stephen had been killed already and a great persecution had began with Saul (Paul) spearheading it. Many christians had been thrown in prison. Certianly he knew his belief could mean death, especailly since he was a prominent figure.
hchaffee 2 years ago
"Why cross James off?"
I explained that at some length in the video. I can't believe you missed it.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Just a note):
Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jeruslem before they go to preach until they receive the batism on the Holy Spirit. That's why they don't go preach right away (Acts 1:4). Also the 'condratiction' you spoke of is easily understood. the disciples regeneration experience is in the book of John when Christ breathes on them and the baptism of power for ministry is in the book of Acts. Its two seperate experiences.
hchaffee 2 years ago
"Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jeruslem before they go to preach until they receive the batism on the Holy Spirit. That's why they don't go preach right away...."
According to John 20:22, they had already received the Holy Spirit from Jesus on the evening of the day he had been raised from the dead.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
""the disciples regeneration experience is in the book of John when Christ breathes on them and the baptism of power for ministry is in the book of Acts. Its two seperate experiences."
Well, that's what one has to say in order to reconcile two very different stories. However, it's nothing more than an imposition on the texts, neither of which says anything remotely like that.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Its either what one has to say or its just as simple as I mentioned. The same thing happened to Jesus. Although He was born of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit came upon Him after He was baptized by John the baptist (Mt 3:13-16) It was only then that He began His ministry.
hchaffee 2 years ago
"Its either what one has to say or its just as simple as I mentioned."
What you mentioned isn't simple. As I noted, it's an imposition on the texts, neither of which say anything remotely like what you've described.
"same thing happened to Jesus."
I don't think you really mean to say "the same thing."
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You're welcome. Glad you liked it.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Just paying devil's advocate (or God's advocate, I suppose), but it seems obvious to me that when Acts says Herod "stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church", then has him killing James, and then has him arresting Peter, the author is obviously saying that they are sacrificing themselves for Christ. It seems irrelevant to focus on the Roman's motivation instead of James and Peter's.
The antisemitism of the passage and the truthfullness are other matters, of course.
kissfan7 2 years ago
"It seems irrelevant to focus on the Roman's motivation instead of James and Peter's."
What I focused on was Herod's motivation because that is what's relevant. Thanks for your comment, Kissfan7.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
yeah, strange isn't it? 40 days before Jesus leaves..versus 1 or 2 days after seeing Jesus.. There's always answer out there for these descrepancies. I am just dismayed honestly because if this is the way God set up to reach humanity-the story written the way it is with many appearing contradictions, God set up many stumbling blocks.
jeffbrown8 2 years ago
Indeed.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The disciples didn't like Luke much. They told him that Jesus had left that evening in order to get rid of him. He didn't wash very often you see.
athywren 2 years ago
Superb, rigorous series, Prof!
Amusing how cognitive dissonance seems itself to be subject to cognitive dissonance, being denied whenever it plays a significant role in belief maintenance. I enjoyed your analysis, and thanks for the fascinating linked article.
On a side note, poor Cardinal Avery Dulles looked as though he was hanging in the clip you show. Perhaps an apt metaphor for his argument...
Looking forward to part 6! ;^>
QualiaSoup 2 years ago
Thanks very much, Qualia. I've had an insanely busy six weeks, but with the worst of it gone by, I had time to get parts 6 through 8 (the conclusion) edited and uploaded.
Now I need to just watch some other people's latest work. You're going to be first on my list, my friend. :-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Yo Prof! Whatever happened to part 6? I've been jonesin for it over a month now. Where's it at? Will it be the epic finale of the series or will there be another wait for the eventual part 7? Hope to see some new stuff soon.
LordSavaunt 2 years ago
GDit. Come on, Prof. Shouldn't be that hard to disprove the hagiographies.
VulcanForge 2 years ago
Part 6 is where his subscribers die for a lie.
biblethink 2 years ago
Another AWESOME series. Looking forward to part six.
A4AgnstcFndmntlst 2 years ago
Part six is a plot
His computer is a christian
Shadizar666 2 years ago
You're welcome. I'm glad you found it useful and persuasive. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Good shtuff man. Good shtuff.
Domzdream 3 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Part 6, plox.
VulcanForge 2 years ago
Hey, where's part six? This is like my wife stroking me five times and then stopping....
crazypills2 3 years ago
More information than I needed! ;-)
Part six is almost done.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"I don't think that congnitive dissonance really explains all religious experience...."
Good. I don't claim that it does, nor does Dr. Dawson in his article. Come on, Vidgazer, time to step up your game by paying attention to what is *actually* being said.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
:-) It's almost done.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
vid, cogni. dis. is not necessarily linked to religion. It is just a very strong mechanism we humans have. It helps explain how people stick to beliefs (of a religious or of a different nature) despite evidence to the contrary. This is not done on purpose, and we are all doing it, one way or another.
Prof (pbuh) does not use say every religious experience is cog dis, but cites examples were a prophesy failed.
This shows that is possible that Jesus' followers developed a narrative too.
MrFacet 3 years ago
"At least this would be a reason to quit if they knew Jesus had not resurrected."
I strongly encourage you to go back to the part of this series in which I discuss congnitive dissonance. It's not my argument here that "they knew Jesus had not resurrected."
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Didn't it please the Jews because James was a disciple?"
The passage doesn't say.
"Thus, the disciples had to be willing to continue preaching under the threat of execution."
That's not consistent with the story of James being summarily executed, as I explained in the video.
"This solution shifts the argument away from the orginal premises, so you win."
I haven't a clue what you mean.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Thanks a lot, AVoxHumana.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Pathetic.
d2girls 3 years ago
"Pathetic."
To what do you refer, D2girls? What has moved you to pity -- contemptuous or otherwise?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I really don't feel like explaning myself.
Just delete my comments I don't care, I wouldn't have even bothered to watch this if it hadn't been plastered all over the front page of Youtube.
d2girls 3 years ago
"I really don't feel like explaning myself."
Somehow I'm not surprised, D2girls.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
you have finally raised all the illogical inconsistencies I saw growing in church, but could never get a straight, logical answer from my teachers.
I was always chastised from questioning these inconsistencies.
Thank you for your scholarly analysis, reasoned and logical discussion.
darbeau1 3 years ago
You're welcome, Darbeau1. Thanks for your comment.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Have you ever thought about doing a legal response to the claims of Simon Greenleaf."
Wow, I haven't even thought about Simon Greenleaf in a very long time, but it's quite appropriate that you've mentioned his name here. He is one of the fathers, as it were, of the type of apologetics to which I'm responding here -- the Lee Strobel of his time, as it were. I haven't thought about doing a response to his stuff, but I certainly will consider it. Great idea, BarryLeder.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Hey Prof, while you're at it, I'm wondering if you have any interest in the so-called "miracles" and how they all have that "the dog ate my homework" characteristic in that you can't confirm they happened. No permanent record was left behind.
Where's the wine? We drank it.
Loaves & fishes? Eaten.
Healed people? Dead.
Lazarus? Re-dead.
Jesus resurrection? In heaven where he's invisible.
Bullshit. They were chosen BECAUSE you can't verify them.
Myths. Legends. Lies.
middlekk 3 years ago
Great video series, you have obviously done your research which is more than I can say about some other people.
Keep it up!
Chevaliersf 3 years ago
Thanks a lot, Chevaliersf.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I'm Jonesing for Part 6, Prof.
ARRGGHHH!!! Where is Part 6?!?
middlekk 3 years ago
It will be up as soon as I can get to it.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Watching the humor in your otherwise great videos is like hearing that Noam Chomsky wrote a coloring book. Please desist.
origin47 3 years ago
Go fly a kite, Origin47.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
ProthMTH's work is just so important and just so good. It's obvious that the people who believe in this nonsense have never really read the bible. I find it impossible to read what the bible actually says, then believe that all this bullshit is the absolute truth!
Ruby1978 3 years ago
Once again you take apologists to task for assertions all to often taken for granted as slam dunks. I wish their readers would be required to hear such arguments immediately afterward...and demonstrate that they understood. Well done ProfMTH!
shunyotube 3 years ago
You're welcome. Thank you for taking the time to comment, Shunyotube.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I really enjoyed this series. While, I think you did adress it, I found the whole distinction between dying for a "belief" being different from dying because of "knowledge" so problematic that I wonder why anyone could stick to this argument. It seems like there are so many better arguments to make.
iniksbane 3 years ago
That said, I also have to applaud you for making your argument within the framework that's been set up.
iniksbane 3 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I enjoy your videos a great deal. You do a great job on all of them. When are the remaining videos of this series going to be posted?
sbaoha 3 years ago
Mayhaps today, mayhaps today....
/me keeps looking every free moment!
MrFacet 3 years ago
Wow. Very well done, Prof. Very insightful. I'm in awe of how thorough you are. And I'm glad I am now of a mind that is free and willing to listen. Thank you as always. I can't wait for part six.
TruthBlazerXL 3 years ago
Thanks very much, TruthBlazerXL.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Thanks very much, Kadathdreamques.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Don't spam my channel with links to William Lane Craig's video, Dino. As I told you after you posted this the first time, I've already heard Dr. Craig's arguments on this.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I can't stand that Dr. Craig idiot. He is so arrogant. It is very ironic that a man who believes in archaic fairy tales thinks he is so much more intelligent than all of the rationalists he debates. Craig drives me insane.
robtul12 3 years ago
Prof, I haven't commented until now, but the research and effort you've put into this series have been amazing. Really nicely done.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago
Well, thank you very much indeed, Liberty. I have great regard for your opinion, so that comment means a lot. Much appreciated.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I look forward to part six. The quality of your videos is impecable. You do the entire rationalist community a tremendous service with the time and dedication you put into your videos. Thank you.
robtul12 3 years ago
You're welcome. Thank you for the very nice words.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Yes, you're more than welcome. I apologize for commenting way off topic. This video series is a great one, and I can't wait for part six. I see your editing skills are coming along nicely and that your good looks are holding firm!
memoryhero 3 years ago
Man, I just got censored for the first time by a theist. It was a 10 Q's every atheist must answer vid. In it, the speaker asserted that atheists claim to not believe in God simply because they don't WANT God to exist. I simply pointed out that the speaker himself would be right to be incensed if a Muslim asserted that the speaker disregarded Mohammad for a similar reason. Result? Immediate deletion of my comment. I hate this! Go, Prof, go! Keep kicking out the quality!
memoryhero 3 years ago
Thanks, MemoryHero.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Paul wasn't the last: Oral Roberts saw jesus in 1977 - by which time he had grown to be 900 feet tall!
proudfootz 3 years ago
Eh, the giant Jesus was *so* done long before old Oral came along, specifically, in the so-called Gospel of Peter, which, in addition to a giant Jesus, has a talking cross.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I still can't understand how people treat the scriptures like a factual, chronological account of history in order to defend their beliefs.
song4568 3 years ago
Nor can I, Song.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 3 years ago