The only real evidence that it was Jesus's tomb was that it had, "Jesus, son of Joseph," and two "Mary"s inscribed.
The documentary proposed the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene.
Although the odds that any one of the names "Jesus," "Jospeh," and "Mary" would be found were very high, since those were common names, the documentary asserted that the odds would be too unlikely for it to be coincidence to find a Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, who married a "Mary."
However, the documentary's fatal error is that they got to carried away with their hypothesis. There was no inscription saying that one Mary was Jeses's mother, the other his wife.
The filmmakers just assumed that those were the Marys' relationship to Jesus.
Basically, it was a tomb of a Jesus, whose father was Joseph, and who had two women named Mary in his family. That would have been quite common. There was no reason to assume that it was the biblical Jesus.
So you admit that you have nothing in terms of evidence, that you were attacking a pathetic straw man of my argument, and that the only defense you have is to pretend like your opponent is stupid, thus relieving you of the responsibility of producing an intelligent rebuttal?
If I were the kind of guy to call my opponent a fucktard, now would be the time I would do it, MatthewPalumbo.
Let's face it. Out of the two of us, one of us made a dismissive comment that asserted, with no evidence whatsoever, that there were more than ten guards at the tomb. That same person strawmanned his opponent, ignoring the opponent's biblically accurate claim that there were no guards during the first night after Jesus's death. That same person, instead of supplying evidence, simply calls his opponent "stupid" because he has no counterargument. One of us appears to be stupid, and it's not me.
You have ZERO evidence as far as I can tell. You insult me instead of defending your claim that there were 10+ guards.
you ignore the fact that I have repeatedly made it clear that the tomb was unguarded during that first night, leaving the tomb vulnerable to grave robbers. I'm not saying that that's what definitely happened, but it's possible.
If there is one thing that I have learned from arguing with Aaronk, it is that insults and bravado do not make one's assertions valid.
Even if we are to take Matthew at his word, he makes no mention of "10+ guards." All we can conclude is that there were at least two guards, since Matthew uses the plural.
Besides, the guards weren't posted until the second day, leaving the tomb unguarded over night. That' what I have said repeatedly.
Do us a favor and actually figure out what the discussion is about before you insert yourself into the conversation. "Oh please" yourself, MatthewPalumbo.
Second point: Even if we assume Jesus had a tomb, and even if a physical resureection of his body was what was claimed, it doesn't mean that his resurrection could be falsified by finding an empty tomb.
1) Jesus wasn't meant to be in Joseph's tomb forever.
It was Joseph's tomb. Jesus would likely have been moved to another tomb sometime after the Sabbath.
2) Bodies were usually left in the tombs for about a year until they were fully decomposed.
Their bones were then put in ossuaries. Even if Jesus was placed in a tomb and never resurrected, his body would not have been in the tomb much longer than a year. Finding an empty tomb years later would have meant nothing.
3) Even if someone found that Jesus's tomb had a body in it, there would be no way to prove it was Jesus's body. It would have decomposed significantly.
4) Few people would have had the motivation to travel to Jerusalem for the express purpose of finding a corpse.
Think of modern parallels-- few people try to disprove the claims of UFO cults. They just write them off as crazy. The Christian movement would have been too small to be considered important, and by teh time the church had grown, Jesus's body would have decomposed beyond recognition.
5) The disciples did not start preaching the resurrection until at least 50 days after Jesus's death. That's ample time for Jesus to decompose beyond recognition.
1) Not until Matthew are we told that the Sanhedrin spread rumors that the disciples stole the body. That's 50 years later.
2) If it was believed by Jews that Jesus' body had been stolen, such a belief needn'tt have started from the very beginning. If there were rumors of that kind, they could have begun years later, after Jesus's body had been moved from Joseph's tomb. Again, by that time it'd be impossible to disprove the resurrection with a corpse.
3) Even if Jesus's body were missing soon after his supposed entombment, it could have been stolen (not necessarily by the disciples) on the Sabbath night or day. Not until Saturday are guards, according to Matthew, placed at the tomb, and they don't check to make sure that Jesus's body was still in the tomb.
4) Matthew's gospel, the only one that mentions the rumors of a stolen body, seems to be written for the express purpose of "proving" the resurrection.
There are guards, a seal, and an earthquake, as well as a breaking open of many tombs, none of which are recorded anywhere else. It is obvious that Matthew is just making stuff up to make the story airtight.
5) The whole story about the Jews fearing that the disciples would fake a resurrection contradicts other parts of the gospels.
According to John 2:19-21, the Jews thought Jesus was talking about rebuilding the physical temple, and not even the disciples realized that Jesus predicted his resurrection until AFTER he had been raised.
So even if Jesus was entombed (assumption 1), and even if the tomb was found empty sometime in the future (assumption 2), the truth of the resurrection does not necessarily follow.
No, because they misunderstood him and didn't realize he was saying that he would resurrect, the Jews couldn't have know to put guards at the tomb. It says that the Jews feared that teh disciples would steal teh body and fake the resurrection, but neither the disciples nor the Jews understood that Jesus would resurrect.
"No, they didn't want anyone to STEAL the body, not fake a resurrection..."
First of all, you are contradicting what Matthew says:
Matt. 27:63 "Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."
You are arguing against your own scripture. Matthew clearly says that the guards were put there to prevent the disciples from faking the resurrection.
Next comes this little tidbit:
" Grave roberies were quite common back then."
YES!
BINGO! Now you're catching on. Before, you said that "the Jews" were the only candidates to steal Jesus's body. Here you admit, quite correctly, that grave robbers were likely to steal the body.
It says right there in Matthew that the Jewish officials wanted to place a guard at the tomb because they feared that the disciles would steal the body to fake the resurrection. Not that anonymous "grave robbers" would do it, but because the disciples would.
And as you admitted earlier, grave robbery was quite common in those days. Therefore, it's not a stretch at all to imagine grave robbers stealing Jesus's unguarded body the 1st night.
And I suppose when the guards did go to the tomb, they didn't bother to check to see if the tomb had been compromised, and just stood their and guarded an empty grave without realizing it.
Yes, I know that, but Matthew, the one gospel that mentions that there were even guards at the tomb, and which goes into great detail about the whole situation, it never says that the guards checked the tomb, just that they put a seal on the stone.
The very idea that the Jews would try to prevent a fake resurrection itself is bizarre, since by all other accounts, they didn't understand that Jesus predicted his own resurrection.
How heavy is the stone? How many people would it take to move it? We dont know how many guards there were, just that there were at least two.
Besides, it is also highly unreasonable to assume that there were any guards placed at teh tomb in the first place, since apparently no one had figured out that Jesus claimed he would resurrect.
Also, if the guards could be bribed to say the disciples stole the body, couldn't they also have been bribed earlier by whoever stole the body?
Another reason to doubt Matthew's account is the fact that much of it could not be eyewitness testimony. Weren't the disciples in hiding during and after the crucifixion of Jesus? How then could Matthew know the conversation among the Jews about needing to send a guard to prevent a fake resurrection?
Today, you assert that the Jewish officials placed guards at Jesus's tomb NOT to prevent the disciples from faking a resurrection, but so that grave robbers in general couldn't steal his body.
This is flatly contradicted in the ONLY piece of writing that claims the Jews placed guards at the tomb. According to Matthew, the Jews feared that the diciples would fake the resurrection that Jesus predicted.
By making these claims, you deny that all the Gospels, especially Matthew, are reliable.
It was possible that they didn't get it at first, but got it later. Besides, they probably expected the Disciples to fake it, because they were extremely loyal to him, and thought he was the son of God.
OK!!!! SORRY!!!!!! My mistake. The Romans didn't give a care about who got a tomb, they killed people at will to keep the Jews from rioting. Besides, Joesph was a member of the sanheddran, and they would have been more likely to let him.
No, it's just NOT INCLUDED in the other gospels. The stolen body thoery was such a ridiculous hypothesis that the other authors felt it irrelevant. The gospels are unique. This means nothing about thier reliability.
I suppose it would be ridiculous for the disciples to steal the body, tehn preach that Jesus had resurrected. However, that's not what I'm saying. Somebody (and I don't mean the disciples) could have stolen the body of Jesus the night he was buried. No one checked inside the tomb until Sunday.
Yeah, grave robbers were very pious Jews, so they would have observed the law rather than make an easy getaway with the unguarded body of a notorious and possibly holy criminal. There is honor among thieves.
Again, what makes you think that grave robbery was common back then? What groups present in Jerusalem would have had any kind of a motive to steal a body?
Medicine men seeking a holy man's body for magic remedies (sounds silly, I know, but this was the ancient world, and superstition was commonplace);
Jews who resented a false messiah and wanted to desecrate his tomb (keep in mind that supposedly no one understood that Jesus predicted his resurrection);
Treasure seekers hoping to profit from the sale/display of a notorious criminal's body;
Yes, that does sound very silly actually. For one thing, do you have any evidence that such groups existed in Jerusalem at that time? Such groups also didn't usually take a whole body. Also, in that culture Jesus hanging on a tree would have removed any status He had as "a holy man".
Jews would not go near a dead body if they could help it. It made them ritually unclean.
Is it so far-fetched, based on what the gsopels say, to believe that a Jew of the time could be hypocritical? That is, defile themselves in their effort to punish and defile Jesus?
It seems to me more likely that a small group of Jews would break tradition and steal Jesus's body than that Jesus rose from the dead and teleported through the tomb's walls.
The laws of Judaism were not nearly as powerful as the laws of physics.
3) The only candidates for the theft of his body would have been Jews, who would not attempt that on the Sabbath. Besides, they had NOTHING to gain, and EVERYTHING to lose. No one would be convinced ONLY by an empty tomb, since grave robberies at that time were quite common.
WTH? Matthew was written 20 years afterwards. Not 50. I have a video on Matthew as well. It could have been moved to another tomb, but with the appearances, it's not likely, which by the way, THE APPERANCES ARE BEYOND DISPUTE. Not a single serious scholar denies them. The Jews, not believing he was the messiah, would have at once begun to explain the empty tomb, not started years later. Again, in a tomb with little oxygen, and wrappings, bodies don't decompose nearly as fast.
What's not disputed? The fact that the disciples claimed to experience Jesus in some way after he died, or that he appeared to them in person, sometimes eating with them, vanishing into thin air, and rising towards heaven?
My contention is this: The resurrection appearances were exaggerated by later authors.
You also say that "no serious scholar" denies them.
Well, the consensus among scholars is to date the gospels to at least 70 AD.
It was 40 days. Again, the appearances are beyond dispute. You don't address the quotes I provided from scholars. All UFO sightings come from hypnosis. THE BASE OF CHRISTIANITY IS THE APPERANCES, NOT THE EMPTY TOMB. If there was JUST an empty tomb, Christianity would have never grown.
All UFO sightings come from hypnosis? Are you insane? I think you're just repeating what Kabane said but severely misunderstood him. He was talking about alien abductions.
There have been UFO sightings reported by hundreds of people at a time. They are reported to police. The people weren't hypnotized.
What I'm referring to are cults like Heaven's Gate which claim to be in contact with UFOs.
Yes, sorry about that. Heaven's Gate could be explained my hypnosis. Besides, there are explanations other than UFO's. There are for the rez, but they all fail.
Do you see what you've done? Without doing any research, you have summarily dismissed teh claims of UFO cults like Heaven's Gate. You didn't bother to look into the actual facts to disprove their claims.
Do I blame you? Of course not. UFO cults have crazy beliefs and are insignificant to society as a whole. Only a fool would bother to travel all the way from Texas to San Diego just to find out for sure that the cult's claims were wrong.
This was the attitude of people during the early days of Christianity. Christianity was an obscure sect. No one would wish to travel to Jerusalem to find Jesus's corpse.
The same way that you dismiss UFO cults, skeptics of the time would have dismissed Jesus's resurrection (whether it really happened or not) because it was so unlikely. Thank you for proving my point.
1) It was made the official religion of teh Roman Emppire. That's kind of a big deal.
2) The reward of heaven and, more importantly, the fear of hell will convince people to adhere to it (or else!)
3) Unlike other cults of the time, Christianity required its adherence to belong to only one religion and serve only one god. That created loyalty to the sect; other sects lacked that benefit.
Here is my question that you never answered: The disciples were second temple Jews. If you were a Jew, and your messiah died, you got a new messiah. You did NOT continue your cult if your messiah died. There were 12 other Jewish messiahs at this time. All 12 died, and all 12 were forgotten. But, Christianity lived on. How do you explain this?
The disciples were particularly loyal. They were emotionally invested in Jesus and his messiahship. Just because something is unusual doesn't mean it CAN'T happen.
There is no law saying that the disciples had to abandon their messiah.
You shouldn't think strictly in black and white like that.
We have psychological and sociological studies that show that when prophecy fails, the most diehard believers can rationalize it.
The gospel accounts present the disciples as being totally crushed by the shaming death of their messiah. To them Jesus' death was the end of all their hopes. The way in which Jesus died as well was particularly humilating. Being hanged on a tree was a particular shame in that culture at that time.
Aaron asked a good question there. All the other so called Messiahs were forgotten, but not Jesus. What would have been so special about Jesus?
The gospels also have Jesus demanding that the disciples abandon their families and possessions in order to follow him. They were heavily invested in the idea of Jesus's being the messiah.
Yes, they would have been dejected, so they could have used whatever excuse they could to turn their humiliating defeat into a victory, to salvage their beliefs, to retain their purpose in life.
The gospels repeatedly have accounts of the disciples interpreting encounters with what seem to be strangers as encounters with Jesus. Multiple times, the disciples meet strangers who only later are identified as being Jesus. This very much resembles symptoms of grief and denial. Probably, these bizarre appearances mentioned in the gospels reflect a tradition that said that the disciples had encounters which they only later understood as having been appearances of the risen Jesus.
Even if two of the gospels were in fact written by disciples who believed they had encountered the risen Jesus, it doesn't mean that the resurrection appearances described are accurate. The disciples were personally convinced by their own experiences, but as you know, subjective personal experiences aren't enough to convince skeptics.
Saying that Thomas touched Jesus's wounds (the bible isn't even clear on that) is much more convincing to someone reading the story.
The earliest Christian writing by Paul mention no vivid physical appearances.
Also, keep in mind that John's was the last gospel, written long after any direct evidence of Jesus's resurrection would have remained. The story of Thomas is therefore likely to be included to send a message to prospective believers that they shouldn't demand evidence, but should have faith:
"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Yes, but when He died that humilating death, all authority He had with regard to such things would have been lost. Jesus died and failed to accomplish what He came to do. That would have pretty much proved in their eyes that He was not the Messiah. What use is a dead Messiah? This is why all the other alledged messiahs were all forgotten. Their deaths proved they were false. So, again I ask, why was Jesus not also forgotten. Why would this failed dead messiah be different?
Because the disciples were, according to the gospels, heavily invested in Jesus being the real deal. They had to abandon their families to be his disciples. So, in their grief, they sought to salvage their beliefs.
Jesus's disciples were also, obviously, not the same people as the disciples of other messianic pretenders.
Asking why the disciples didn't just give up on Jesus is like asking why filmmakers made six sequels to the "Police Academy" franchise. In other words, even if it seemingly defies logic and common sense, there were still hangers on long after the original was long dead.
What reason do we have for thinking that the disciples of Jesus would have been more loyal or invested than the followes of another alledged messiah? In that day and culture, a Messiah figure who pathetically allowed himself to be slaughtered without doing anything to try to prevent it would not be someone worth hanging onto. That's why the other "messiahs" were forgotten as being obviously false. There is no reason to think that it would have been different with Jesus.
But they probably weren't rejected immediately. It probably took weeks or longer for their disciples to come to grips with the apparent fact that they had dedicated themselves to a lie.
If the disciples of Jesus were desperate enough, they could have interpreted their experiences shortly after Jesus's death as encounters with Jesus.
"But they probably weren't rejected immediately. It probably took weeks or longer for their disciples to come to grips with the apparent fact that they had dedicated themselves to a lie. "
*I am referring to the disciples of the other messianic pretenders here
You shouldn't think in such absolute terms. Different people are affected by grief in different ways. Perhaps if the disciples of some other messiah had been more loyal, people might still be revering that messianic figure.
The fact is, we simply can't know. Whatever information there was about the disciples of other messiahs is likely lost to the 2000 years since then. There is a poverty of information.
"Yes, but when He died that humilating death, all authority He had with regard to such things would have been lost."
There are two basic but fundamentally different ways that a person could react to this humiliating defeat. They could either give up, or they could react violently against it. Some people might accept defeat, while others might refuse to admit defeat, because the cost of such a defeat would be so high, and thus they would try to spin it in their favor.
If the death of Jesus weren't so humiliating, there could have been a lukewarm response. A humiliating defeat all but guarantees a strong response in one direction or another.
Just because most prophetic cults fail when the prophecies fail doesn't mean that all cults will, or that no cult can succeed. Most religious cults would fail nowadays if their propheces failed, yet in spite of this, the Jehovah's Witnesses persist.
Aaron, you pointed me to this video for your "evidence" that Jesus was placed in a tomb to begin with. Now I see why you repeatedly refused to just tell me the evidence outright.
I had asked for pre-Mark accounts which say Jesus was placed in a tomb.
Your points are the following:
1) The Gospels say so.
2) A modern scholar says so. Appeal to authority.
3) Paul said Jesus was "buried." He doesn't say that Jesus was entombed, but that he was buried. Under dirt? Under bodies?
The quote from Corinthians says nothing about the circumstances of Jesus's burial, and does not suggest that Jesus's body was treated like a rich man's body.
Had Jesus been placed in a tomb, it may have been possible to verify or falsify the resurrection at the time. However, there is no indication until Mark that Jesus received a tomb, or anything but a prisoner's burial. Were Jesus buried anonymously like the criminal he was, it would've been impossible to know for sure if he had resurrected.
Moreover, the only "evidence" given from the gospels is that Joseph of Arimathea gave Jesus his tomb. You suggest that simply because a person is named, it therefore constitutes reliable evidence.
First of all, there is no record of a town called Arimathea., though scholars have tried to identify it with other towns that have slighlty similar names.
Second, Joseph is used simply to further along the plot. He appears in only one scene, then disappears.
There is no mention of him again, even though he would have been have been a prime suspect for taking part in a conspiracy to fake a resurrection.
Third, it would have been easy to just make up a person, 40 years after the fact. There were likely many Jospehs on the Sanhedrin. Moreover, any records to the contrary would have been destroyed or been inaccessible due to the Romans' destruction of Jerusalem in 70.
Fourth, the scene of Joseph asking Pilate for Jesus's body bears resemblance to a scene at the end of the Iliad, where Priam asks Achilles to hand over Hektor's body for a proper burial after Achilles had disgraced and abused the body. The account of Joseph of Arimathea is better read as literary rather than historical for all these reasons.
It was less than 20 years after the fact. Go watch my video on the date of Mark. I don't think there were many Joesph's of Aramithea on the sanhedran.
I've heard your argument: the fact that Jesus's prophecy about the temple being destroyed hints at the end of the world means that it wouldn't have been included in the canon because the end of teh world didn't come.
I've also seen your argument dispensed with in one of teh early comments on this video.
-Jesus said that "this generation shall not pass before all these things are accomplished." A 70 AD date was close enough to the original events that people would have been alive.
Some people of "that generation" would have even been alive by the time John was written in the early 2nd or late 1st century.
-As far as canonization, that would develop over the following centuries.
-Paul does not seem to be aware of these gospels at all.
It seems much more likely that the prophecy was written in after the fact to give credibility to Jesus, rather than the gospel writers including the prophecy of teh temple's destruction, then crossing their fingers that it would come true.
He says he was buried. Luke, a companion of Paul, mentions the empty tomb, so Paul must have know about it. Buriied in the greek mean the same as put into a tomb.
No, Luke was a close companion of Paul, so Paul must have known about the empty tomb. In addition, when he learned about the creed somewhere around 35 AD on his visit to Peter and Thomas, who would have mentioned it also.
Is anyone really interested in this? I ditched Christianity so I wouldn't have to hear this propaganda. In the future, try not to read articles written by Apologetic Christians in the future.
"But hey, he's Jeeesus. And that book is real old, so it couldn't have been an embellishment, forgery, or just plain bullshit orchestrated by fucking Bronze Age men who were unknowledgeable about how decomposition or even death itself works."
You might want to note what Martha says to Jesus in John chapter 11 concerning what Lazarus is liable to smell like. These people knew about decomposition.
Horus has a miraculous but not virgin birth. Osiris has his sexual organ chopped off and lost. Then he gets it replaced with a golden.. appendage and him and Isis make a baby.
I am a good Christian, and it is hard for me to belive this but i fear i should tell you any way
There are HUNDREDS of ancient religions created before Christianity. Most of the saviors of those religions (belived to be the son of there god) have these charictaristics
The pagan parallels thesis was dismissed by scholars 100 years ago. It was based on nothing at all, and most of the material was never factuall to begin with.
The body of this Palestinian Jew was miraculously preserved for three days until it ascended into the sky and above cosmos into Heab'm.
Shit like that happens all the time these days.
But hey, he's Jeeesus. And that book is real old, so it couldn't have been an embellishment, forgery, or just plain bullshit orchestrated by fucking Bronze Age men who were unknowledgeable about how decomposition or even death itself works.
Well done - Great Video: However it all comes down to ones personal faith in Jesus Christ and belief that the Bible is the true word of God. I personally believe this and frankly feel sorry for those who risk their eternity challenging what you and I know is truth. I admire your debating skills and I do hope that you can win over Franzduck as he is an amazingly intelligent young man. He would be a great ambassador for Christ.
"I personally believe this and frankly feel sorry for those who risk their eternity challenging what you and I know is truth."
I feel sorry for you that you have been scared into irrational faith by a 2000 year old fairytale. You dont "know" its the truth you believe its the truth.
This isnt the first of your videos that ive watched. You often disregard my comments and the comments of others when the comment points out a flaw in your argument.
If when I die, I find that I was wrong and there is no heaven or hell, I will have lived a great life and lost nothing. However if I am right and you are wrong, you will have lost eveything.
An empty tomb doesnt prove the jesus resurection story. It's like me saying there was a lion in my back yard but it escaped, there isnt a lion in my back yard so that proves that one escaped. Its not rational.
It was found that the name of jesus had been etched into the 'coffin' of Jesus at a later date than the other names......... thats it in a nutshell, subject to correction ------- I too am too lazy lol
A collection of books chosen by the church all say that Jesus rose from the dead. That is no surprise. That followers believed is no proof. Heaven's Gate followers gave their lifes for their beliefs. That doesn't mean their beliefs were true. 500 witnesses... named what? that gave their own independent accounts? no.
You see, as it turns out, the Lost Tomb of Jesus wasnt lost at all. It wasnt the tomb of Jesus either. Instead, it was the Talpiot Tomb, discovered by archaeologists real ones — more than 25 years earlier. It had long since been analyzed, and the results published in a scholarly journal. The conclusion of the experts was that it was a fairly standard cave tomb of a wealthy Jewish family of the first century.
No, Christianity was not disproved. That documentary has been refuted by dozens of people. Just go to google and search "The lost tomb of Jesus debunked".
You seriously need to look up the difference between primary, secondary and contemporary sources. Seriously please look it up. My fiancée has a PHD in early Christian history and the emergence of the modern church including the historical Jesus; again please look up contemporary sources before making such a factually flawed video!
I believe you're talking about the Shroud of Turin, I think it's called that anyway. They found a cloth and it showed what many religious people claimed to be the face of Jesus.
However, scientists reviewed it and carbon dated it back to between 1200-1300 AD. A lot of religious people started questioning the carbon dating method but heh, go figure.
if yr willing to put yr faith over history, then showaly others will do the same.... basicly for all we know the 12 people you spoke of put their faith in insted of history....
damn... Aron... you are aware that you look lifeless and very... psychotic when you read of a text and not just talk to the camera.
KaptajnKaffe 2 years ago
why do you care so much about this shit?? just go be a normal little boy and go get a fucking hobby. Just GO FUCKING LIVE YOUR LIFE!!
COBHateCrewShredder 2 years ago 5
@COBHateCrewShredder YEAH. I AGREE. it would be better if he made timelapses of plants. PLANTS
theamazingplant2 2 years ago
What do you think about ProfMTH's Die for a lie series?
gusb232 2 years ago
the only valid response to this video is "apologetics ROFL"
harrisonfong 2 years ago
William Lane Craig? Who cares? Apologists do a good job of pretending that apples are oranges.
megamanium 2 years ago
Comment removed
gremlinn7 2 years ago
get some unbiased sources outside of apologetic books?
blackopient 2 years ago 5
I cited SECULAR scholars that agree with me.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
No, no you didn't, you provided quote mines and religious sources. These hold no value.
lessergnome 2 years ago 6
You undertook some quote mining and you know it darling...
PunkCheerleaderBetch 2 years ago
The only real evidence that it was Jesus's tomb was that it had, "Jesus, son of Joseph," and two "Mary"s inscribed.
The documentary proposed the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene.
Although the odds that any one of the names "Jesus," "Jospeh," and "Mary" would be found were very high, since those were common names, the documentary asserted that the odds would be too unlikely for it to be coincidence to find a Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, who married a "Mary."
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
However, the documentary's fatal error is that they got to carried away with their hypothesis. There was no inscription saying that one Mary was Jeses's mother, the other his wife.
The filmmakers just assumed that those were the Marys' relationship to Jesus.
Basically, it was a tomb of a Jesus, whose father was Joseph, and who had two women named Mary in his family. That would have been quite common. There was no reason to assume that it was the biblical Jesus.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
So you admit that you have nothing in terms of evidence, that you were attacking a pathetic straw man of my argument, and that the only defense you have is to pretend like your opponent is stupid, thus relieving you of the responsibility of producing an intelligent rebuttal?
If I were the kind of guy to call my opponent a fucktard, now would be the time I would do it, MatthewPalumbo.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
So unless you can
a) provide evidence for your claim or
b) admit that you were mistaken, and that my argument was much more complex than the strawman-version that you attacked,
I would recommend that you stop calling people "stupid."
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Let's face it. Out of the two of us, one of us made a dismissive comment that asserted, with no evidence whatsoever, that there were more than ten guards at the tomb. That same person strawmanned his opponent, ignoring the opponent's biblically accurate claim that there were no guards during the first night after Jesus's death. That same person, instead of supplying evidence, simply calls his opponent "stupid" because he has no counterargument. One of us appears to be stupid, and it's not me.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
You have ZERO evidence as far as I can tell. You insult me instead of defending your claim that there were 10+ guards.
you ignore the fact that I have repeatedly made it clear that the tomb was unguarded during that first night, leaving the tomb vulnerable to grave robbers. I'm not saying that that's what definitely happened, but it's possible.
If there is one thing that I have learned from arguing with Aaronk, it is that insults and bravado do not make one's assertions valid.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
"10+ guards"?
Huh?
According to whom?
Even if we are to take Matthew at his word, he makes no mention of "10+ guards." All we can conclude is that there were at least two guards, since Matthew uses the plural.
Besides, the guards weren't posted until the second day, leaving the tomb unguarded over night. That' what I have said repeatedly.
Do us a favor and actually figure out what the discussion is about before you insert yourself into the conversation. "Oh please" yourself, MatthewPalumbo.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Second point: Even if we assume Jesus had a tomb, and even if a physical resureection of his body was what was claimed, it doesn't mean that his resurrection could be falsified by finding an empty tomb.
1) Jesus wasn't meant to be in Joseph's tomb forever.
It was Joseph's tomb. Jesus would likely have been moved to another tomb sometime after the Sabbath.
2) Bodies were usually left in the tombs for about a year until they were fully decomposed.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Their bones were then put in ossuaries. Even if Jesus was placed in a tomb and never resurrected, his body would not have been in the tomb much longer than a year. Finding an empty tomb years later would have meant nothing.
3) Even if someone found that Jesus's tomb had a body in it, there would be no way to prove it was Jesus's body. It would have decomposed significantly.
4) Few people would have had the motivation to travel to Jerusalem for the express purpose of finding a corpse.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Think of modern parallels-- few people try to disprove the claims of UFO cults. They just write them off as crazy. The Christian movement would have been too small to be considered important, and by teh time the church had grown, Jesus's body would have decomposed beyond recognition.
5) The disciples did not start preaching the resurrection until at least 50 days after Jesus's death. That's ample time for Jesus to decompose beyond recognition.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
As for the accusations of the stolen body:
1) Not until Matthew are we told that the Sanhedrin spread rumors that the disciples stole the body. That's 50 years later.
2) If it was believed by Jews that Jesus' body had been stolen, such a belief needn'tt have started from the very beginning. If there were rumors of that kind, they could have begun years later, after Jesus's body had been moved from Joseph's tomb. Again, by that time it'd be impossible to disprove the resurrection with a corpse.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
3) Even if Jesus's body were missing soon after his supposed entombment, it could have been stolen (not necessarily by the disciples) on the Sabbath night or day. Not until Saturday are guards, according to Matthew, placed at the tomb, and they don't check to make sure that Jesus's body was still in the tomb.
4) Matthew's gospel, the only one that mentions the rumors of a stolen body, seems to be written for the express purpose of "proving" the resurrection.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
There are guards, a seal, and an earthquake, as well as a breaking open of many tombs, none of which are recorded anywhere else. It is obvious that Matthew is just making stuff up to make the story airtight.
5) The whole story about the Jews fearing that the disciples would fake a resurrection contradicts other parts of the gospels.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
According to John 2:19-21, the Jews thought Jesus was talking about rebuilding the physical temple, and not even the disciples realized that Jesus predicted his resurrection until AFTER he had been raised.
So even if Jesus was entombed (assumption 1), and even if the tomb was found empty sometime in the future (assumption 2), the truth of the resurrection does not necessarily follow.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
I'm not following. Just because they misunderstood him, then Jesus did not resurrect?
aaronk1994 2 years ago
No, because they misunderstood him and didn't realize he was saying that he would resurrect, the Jews couldn't have know to put guards at the tomb. It says that the Jews feared that teh disciples would steal teh body and fake the resurrection, but neither the disciples nor the Jews understood that Jesus would resurrect.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
No, they didn't want anyone to STEAL the body, not fake a resurrection. Grave roberies were quite common back then.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
"No, they didn't want anyone to STEAL the body, not fake a resurrection..."
First of all, you are contradicting what Matthew says:
Matt. 27:63 "Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' 64So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
You are arguing against your own scripture. Matthew clearly says that the guards were put there to prevent the disciples from faking the resurrection.
Next comes this little tidbit:
" Grave roberies were quite common back then."
YES!
BINGO! Now you're catching on. Before, you said that "the Jews" were the only candidates to steal Jesus's body. Here you admit, quite correctly, that grave robbers were likely to steal the body.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
They placed the guards there BECAUSE grave robieries were common. THAT'S the point.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
You again and again ignore what the Bible says!
It says right there in Matthew that the Jewish officials wanted to place a guard at the tomb because they feared that the disciles would steal the body to fake the resurrection. Not that anonymous "grave robbers" would do it, but because the disciples would.
And as you admitted earlier, grave robbery was quite common in those days. Therefore, it's not a stretch at all to imagine grave robbers stealing Jesus's unguarded body the 1st night.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
And I suppose when the guards did go to the tomb, they didn't bother to check to see if the tomb had been compromised, and just stood their and guarded an empty grave without realizing it.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
There is no mention of it in Matthew.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Matthew recounts them being sent to guard the tomb the morning following the burial.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
Yes, I know that, but Matthew, the one gospel that mentions that there were even guards at the tomb, and which goes into great detail about the whole situation, it never says that the guards checked the tomb, just that they put a seal on the stone.
The very idea that the Jews would try to prevent a fake resurrection itself is bizarre, since by all other accounts, they didn't understand that Jesus predicted his own resurrection.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
It seems a bit unreasonable to me to assume that they wouldn't. The Romans and Jewish officals were not stupid you know.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
How heavy is the stone? How many people would it take to move it? We dont know how many guards there were, just that there were at least two.
Besides, it is also highly unreasonable to assume that there were any guards placed at teh tomb in the first place, since apparently no one had figured out that Jesus claimed he would resurrect.
Also, if the guards could be bribed to say the disciples stole the body, couldn't they also have been bribed earlier by whoever stole the body?
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Another reason to doubt Matthew's account is the fact that much of it could not be eyewitness testimony. Weren't the disciples in hiding during and after the crucifixion of Jesus? How then could Matthew know the conversation among the Jews about needing to send a guard to prevent a fake resurrection?
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Aaron, what is your problem with scripture!?
You claim the gospels are reliable, but twice in the past two days, you have repeatedly contradicted what it plainly says.
Yesterday, you said, and I quote, "The Jews bribed the romans into giving Jesus a tomb, moron."
This contradicts the gospel account that says that Joseph of Arimathea lent Jesus his own tomb.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Today, you assert that the Jewish officials placed guards at Jesus's tomb NOT to prevent the disciples from faking a resurrection, but so that grave robbers in general couldn't steal his body.
This is flatly contradicted in the ONLY piece of writing that claims the Jews placed guards at the tomb. According to Matthew, the Jews feared that the diciples would fake the resurrection that Jesus predicted.
By making these claims, you deny that all the Gospels, especially Matthew, are reliable.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
It was possible that they didn't get it at first, but got it later. Besides, they probably expected the Disciples to fake it, because they were extremely loyal to him, and thought he was the son of God.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
OK!!!! SORRY!!!!!! My mistake. The Romans didn't give a care about who got a tomb, they killed people at will to keep the Jews from rioting. Besides, Joesph was a member of the sanheddran, and they would have been more likely to let him.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
But you admit that grave robbery was a common problem back then?
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Was it a common problem back then? Back that up please.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
Don't call people stupid.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
No, it's just NOT INCLUDED in the other gospels. The stolen body thoery was such a ridiculous hypothesis that the other authors felt it irrelevant. The gospels are unique. This means nothing about thier reliability.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I suppose it would be ridiculous for the disciples to steal the body, tehn preach that Jesus had resurrected. However, that's not what I'm saying. Somebody (and I don't mean the disciples) could have stolen the body of Jesus the night he was buried. No one checked inside the tomb until Sunday.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
But no one would have, since it was the sabbath.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Yeah, grave robbers were very pious Jews, so they would have observed the law rather than make an easy getaway with the unguarded body of a notorious and possibly holy criminal. There is honor among thieves.
*sarcasm*
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
If they were caught, they would have been put to death, or at least punished.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Yet people, as you said before, robbed graves anyway.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Again, what makes you think that grave robbery was common back then? What groups present in Jerusalem would have had any kind of a motive to steal a body?
ukchristian28 2 years ago
There could be a number of candidates.
Medicine men seeking a holy man's body for magic remedies (sounds silly, I know, but this was the ancient world, and superstition was commonplace);
Jews who resented a false messiah and wanted to desecrate his tomb (keep in mind that supposedly no one understood that Jesus predicted his resurrection);
Treasure seekers hoping to profit from the sale/display of a notorious criminal's body;
etc.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Yes, that does sound very silly actually. For one thing, do you have any evidence that such groups existed in Jerusalem at that time? Such groups also didn't usually take a whole body. Also, in that culture Jesus hanging on a tree would have removed any status He had as "a holy man".
Jews would not go near a dead body if they could help it. It made them ritually unclean.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
Is it so far-fetched, based on what the gsopels say, to believe that a Jew of the time could be hypocritical? That is, defile themselves in their effort to punish and defile Jesus?
It seems to me more likely that a small group of Jews would break tradition and steal Jesus's body than that Jesus rose from the dead and teleported through the tomb's walls.
The laws of Judaism were not nearly as powerful as the laws of physics.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
4) I've addressed in the comment below.
3) The only candidates for the theft of his body would have been Jews, who would not attempt that on the Sabbath. Besides, they had NOTHING to gain, and EVERYTHING to lose. No one would be convinced ONLY by an empty tomb, since grave robberies at that time were quite common.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
WTH? Matthew was written 20 years afterwards. Not 50. I have a video on Matthew as well. It could have been moved to another tomb, but with the appearances, it's not likely, which by the way, THE APPERANCES ARE BEYOND DISPUTE. Not a single serious scholar denies them. The Jews, not believing he was the messiah, would have at once begun to explain the empty tomb, not started years later. Again, in a tomb with little oxygen, and wrappings, bodies don't decompose nearly as fast.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
"The appearances are beyond dispute"?
Really?
What's not disputed? The fact that the disciples claimed to experience Jesus in some way after he died, or that he appeared to them in person, sometimes eating with them, vanishing into thin air, and rising towards heaven?
My contention is this: The resurrection appearances were exaggerated by later authors.
You also say that "no serious scholar" denies them.
Well, the consensus among scholars is to date the gospels to at least 70 AD.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
If scholars actually agree to that, they're morons. Go watch my videos on the date of the gospels.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Your entire argument relies on the assumption that your creative and fanciful dating of the gospels is true.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
You can go watch them yourself, they are in a playlist.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
It was 40 days. Again, the appearances are beyond dispute. You don't address the quotes I provided from scholars. All UFO sightings come from hypnosis. THE BASE OF CHRISTIANITY IS THE APPERANCES, NOT THE EMPTY TOMB. If there was JUST an empty tomb, Christianity would have never grown.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
All UFO sightings come from hypnosis? Are you insane? I think you're just repeating what Kabane said but severely misunderstood him. He was talking about alien abductions.
There have been UFO sightings reported by hundreds of people at a time. They are reported to police. The people weren't hypnotized.
What I'm referring to are cults like Heaven's Gate which claim to be in contact with UFOs.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Yes, sorry about that. Heaven's Gate could be explained my hypnosis. Besides, there are explanations other than UFO's. There are for the rez, but they all fail.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Do you see what you've done? Without doing any research, you have summarily dismissed teh claims of UFO cults like Heaven's Gate. You didn't bother to look into the actual facts to disprove their claims.
Do I blame you? Of course not. UFO cults have crazy beliefs and are insignificant to society as a whole. Only a fool would bother to travel all the way from Texas to San Diego just to find out for sure that the cult's claims were wrong.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
This was the attitude of people during the early days of Christianity. Christianity was an obscure sect. No one would wish to travel to Jerusalem to find Jesus's corpse.
The same way that you dismiss UFO cults, skeptics of the time would have dismissed Jesus's resurrection (whether it really happened or not) because it was so unlikely. Thank you for proving my point.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Tell me, why does our "cult" still live on?
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Christianity lives on for a number of factors:
1) It was made the official religion of teh Roman Emppire. That's kind of a big deal.
2) The reward of heaven and, more importantly, the fear of hell will convince people to adhere to it (or else!)
3) Unlike other cults of the time, Christianity required its adherence to belong to only one religion and serve only one god. That created loyalty to the sect; other sects lacked that benefit.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
People could be members of multiple sects and not be particularly loyal to any one of them, or they could belong to Christianity and be loyal to one.
4) Christianity urges people to evangelize.
5) Christianity was the religion of the conquistadors and settlers of the the Americas.
Do you want me to go on? Or should I ask you how Buddhism lives on? Hinduism?
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Here is my question that you never answered: The disciples were second temple Jews. If you were a Jew, and your messiah died, you got a new messiah. You did NOT continue your cult if your messiah died. There were 12 other Jewish messiahs at this time. All 12 died, and all 12 were forgotten. But, Christianity lived on. How do you explain this?
aaronk1994 2 years ago
The disciples were particularly loyal. They were emotionally invested in Jesus and his messiahship. Just because something is unusual doesn't mean it CAN'T happen.
There is no law saying that the disciples had to abandon their messiah.
You shouldn't think strictly in black and white like that.
We have psychological and sociological studies that show that when prophecy fails, the most diehard believers can rationalize it.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
The gospel accounts present the disciples as being totally crushed by the shaming death of their messiah. To them Jesus' death was the end of all their hopes. The way in which Jesus died as well was particularly humilating. Being hanged on a tree was a particular shame in that culture at that time.
Aaron asked a good question there. All the other so called Messiahs were forgotten, but not Jesus. What would have been so special about Jesus?
ukchristian28 2 years ago
The gospels also have Jesus demanding that the disciples abandon their families and possessions in order to follow him. They were heavily invested in the idea of Jesus's being the messiah.
Yes, they would have been dejected, so they could have used whatever excuse they could to turn their humiliating defeat into a victory, to salvage their beliefs, to retain their purpose in life.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
The gospels repeatedly have accounts of the disciples interpreting encounters with what seem to be strangers as encounters with Jesus. Multiple times, the disciples meet strangers who only later are identified as being Jesus. This very much resembles symptoms of grief and denial. Probably, these bizarre appearances mentioned in the gospels reflect a tradition that said that the disciples had encounters which they only later understood as having been appearances of the risen Jesus.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Except they claimed that Jesus' resurrection was physical. Thomas is even said to have touched the risen Jesus.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
One word: exaggeration.
Even if two of the gospels were in fact written by disciples who believed they had encountered the risen Jesus, it doesn't mean that the resurrection appearances described are accurate. The disciples were personally convinced by their own experiences, but as you know, subjective personal experiences aren't enough to convince skeptics.
Saying that Thomas touched Jesus's wounds (the bible isn't even clear on that) is much more convincing to someone reading the story.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
The earliest Christian writing by Paul mention no vivid physical appearances.
Also, keep in mind that John's was the last gospel, written long after any direct evidence of Jesus's resurrection would have remained. The story of Thomas is therefore likely to be included to send a message to prospective believers that they shouldn't demand evidence, but should have faith:
"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Yes, but when He died that humilating death, all authority He had with regard to such things would have been lost. Jesus died and failed to accomplish what He came to do. That would have pretty much proved in their eyes that He was not the Messiah. What use is a dead Messiah? This is why all the other alledged messiahs were all forgotten. Their deaths proved they were false. So, again I ask, why was Jesus not also forgotten. Why would this failed dead messiah be different?
ukchristian28 2 years ago
Because the disciples were, according to the gospels, heavily invested in Jesus being the real deal. They had to abandon their families to be his disciples. So, in their grief, they sought to salvage their beliefs.
Jesus's disciples were also, obviously, not the same people as the disciples of other messianic pretenders.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Asking why the disciples didn't just give up on Jesus is like asking why filmmakers made six sequels to the "Police Academy" franchise. In other words, even if it seemingly defies logic and common sense, there were still hangers on long after the original was long dead.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
What reason do we have for thinking that the disciples of Jesus would have been more loyal or invested than the followes of another alledged messiah? In that day and culture, a Messiah figure who pathetically allowed himself to be slaughtered without doing anything to try to prevent it would not be someone worth hanging onto. That's why the other "messiahs" were forgotten as being obviously false. There is no reason to think that it would have been different with Jesus.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
But they probably weren't rejected immediately. It probably took weeks or longer for their disciples to come to grips with the apparent fact that they had dedicated themselves to a lie.
If the disciples of Jesus were desperate enough, they could have interpreted their experiences shortly after Jesus's death as encounters with Jesus.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
"But they probably weren't rejected immediately. It probably took weeks or longer for their disciples to come to grips with the apparent fact that they had dedicated themselves to a lie. "
*I am referring to the disciples of the other messianic pretenders here
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
You shouldn't think in such absolute terms. Different people are affected by grief in different ways. Perhaps if the disciples of some other messiah had been more loyal, people might still be revering that messianic figure.
The fact is, we simply can't know. Whatever information there was about the disciples of other messiahs is likely lost to the 2000 years since then. There is a poverty of information.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
"Yes, but when He died that humilating death, all authority He had with regard to such things would have been lost."
There are two basic but fundamentally different ways that a person could react to this humiliating defeat. They could either give up, or they could react violently against it. Some people might accept defeat, while others might refuse to admit defeat, because the cost of such a defeat would be so high, and thus they would try to spin it in their favor.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
If the death of Jesus weren't so humiliating, there could have been a lukewarm response. A humiliating defeat all but guarantees a strong response in one direction or another.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Just because most prophetic cults fail when the prophecies fail doesn't mean that all cults will, or that no cult can succeed. Most religious cults would fail nowadays if their propheces failed, yet in spite of this, the Jehovah's Witnesses persist.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Good question, Aaron:).
ukchristian28 2 years ago
However, the early source we have from Mark is reliable, and it was only 3 days later.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Aaron, you pointed me to this video for your "evidence" that Jesus was placed in a tomb to begin with. Now I see why you repeatedly refused to just tell me the evidence outright.
I had asked for pre-Mark accounts which say Jesus was placed in a tomb.
Your points are the following:
1) The Gospels say so.
2) A modern scholar says so. Appeal to authority.
3) Paul said Jesus was "buried." He doesn't say that Jesus was entombed, but that he was buried. Under dirt? Under bodies?
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
The quote from Corinthians says nothing about the circumstances of Jesus's burial, and does not suggest that Jesus's body was treated like a rich man's body.
Had Jesus been placed in a tomb, it may have been possible to verify or falsify the resurrection at the time. However, there is no indication until Mark that Jesus received a tomb, or anything but a prisoner's burial. Were Jesus buried anonymously like the criminal he was, it would've been impossible to know for sure if he had resurrected.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Moreover, the only "evidence" given from the gospels is that Joseph of Arimathea gave Jesus his tomb. You suggest that simply because a person is named, it therefore constitutes reliable evidence.
First of all, there is no record of a town called Arimathea., though scholars have tried to identify it with other towns that have slighlty similar names.
Second, Joseph is used simply to further along the plot. He appears in only one scene, then disappears.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
There is no mention of him again, even though he would have been have been a prime suspect for taking part in a conspiracy to fake a resurrection.
Third, it would have been easy to just make up a person, 40 years after the fact. There were likely many Jospehs on the Sanhedrin. Moreover, any records to the contrary would have been destroyed or been inaccessible due to the Romans' destruction of Jerusalem in 70.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Fourth, the scene of Joseph asking Pilate for Jesus's body bears resemblance to a scene at the end of the Iliad, where Priam asks Achilles to hand over Hektor's body for a proper burial after Achilles had disgraced and abused the body. The account of Joseph of Arimathea is better read as literary rather than historical for all these reasons.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
It contains parallels, so what? I could name lot's of parallels between Rome and the USA, I guess that proves that the USA isn't real.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
It was less than 20 years after the fact. Go watch my video on the date of Mark. I don't think there were many Joesph's of Aramithea on the sanhedran.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I've heard your argument: the fact that Jesus's prophecy about the temple being destroyed hints at the end of the world means that it wouldn't have been included in the canon because the end of teh world didn't come.
I've also seen your argument dispensed with in one of teh early comments on this video.
-Jesus said that "this generation shall not pass before all these things are accomplished." A 70 AD date was close enough to the original events that people would have been alive.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Some people of "that generation" would have even been alive by the time John was written in the early 2nd or late 1st century.
-As far as canonization, that would develop over the following centuries.
-Paul does not seem to be aware of these gospels at all.
It seems much more likely that the prophecy was written in after the fact to give credibility to Jesus, rather than the gospel writers including the prophecy of teh temple's destruction, then crossing their fingers that it would come true.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
migkillertwo has a video on that prophecy, and N. T. has a quite thorough discussion in his book "The New Testament, and the People of God".
aaronk1994 2 years ago
He says he was buried. Luke, a companion of Paul, mentions the empty tomb, so Paul must have know about it. Buriied in the greek mean the same as put into a tomb.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Oh, so Luke=Paul. There's no chance that Luke could have added any details... right.
We already know that Luke used Mark as a source. Mark had the empty tomb, so Luke put it in.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
No, Luke was a close companion of Paul, so Paul must have known about the empty tomb. In addition, when he learned about the creed somewhere around 35 AD on his visit to Peter and Thomas, who would have mentioned it also.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Again, you're assuming that Luke wrote his gospel BEFORE Paul wrote his epistles.
SeenAndNotSeen 2 years ago
Is anyone really interested in this? I ditched Christianity so I wouldn't have to hear this propaganda. In the future, try not to read articles written by Apologetic Christians in the future.
no1sjester 2 years ago
"But hey, he's Jeeesus. And that book is real old, so it couldn't have been an embellishment, forgery, or just plain bullshit orchestrated by fucking Bronze Age men who were unknowledgeable about how decomposition or even death itself works."
You might want to note what Martha says to Jesus in John chapter 11 concerning what Lazarus is liable to smell like. These people knew about decomposition.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago 2
you know what? I'm not going to change you're mind and you're not going to change mine. We both seem content with our beliefs and i'm happy.
God Bless
SpigeddyLee 2 years ago
look up some persian religions, you'll see some
*i'm not debating, i'm stating an opinion
SpigeddyLee 2 years ago
1. They were born of Virgin Birth
2. They were betrayed by a close friend
3. they were crucified and buried
4. They were resurrected in 3 days
don't you DARE say coincidence
SpigeddyLee 2 years ago
Horus was not born of a virgin. Isis revived Osiris for a short time so they could have sex, that's when they concieved Horus. Horus never even died.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Horus has a miraculous but not virgin birth. Osiris has his sexual organ chopped off and lost. Then he gets it replaced with a golden.. appendage and him and Isis make a baby.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Still not a virgin birth. There was intercourse. They were supposed to be "gods" so of course in would not be a "natural human" birth.
megawolf7 2 years ago
I am a good Christian, and it is hard for me to belive this but i fear i should tell you any way
There are HUNDREDS of ancient religions created before Christianity. Most of the saviors of those religions (belived to be the son of there god) have these charictaristics
SpigeddyLee 2 years ago
The pagan parallels thesis was dismissed by scholars 100 years ago. It was based on nothing at all, and most of the material was never factuall to begin with.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
You might want to check out Kabanethechristian and sirtheistDRF's channels. They have some good videos on the subject.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
The body of this Palestinian Jew was miraculously preserved for three days until it ascended into the sky and above cosmos into Heab'm.
Shit like that happens all the time these days.
But hey, he's Jeeesus. And that book is real old, so it couldn't have been an embellishment, forgery, or just plain bullshit orchestrated by fucking Bronze Age men who were unknowledgeable about how decomposition or even death itself works.
So to all of you dumbass atheists:
BAM.
You've been owned.
Pwnage.
Lanzaer 2 years ago
You never explain why the women were believed.
Women go to the tomb & an angel tells them Jesus has risen.
Men go to the tomb, find it empty and believe the story about the angel.
Why would men believe the bit about the angel when more plausible explanations exist? (e.g. the body was stolen)
The women's testimony about the angel is unjustified because an empty tomb alone does not justify the story about an angel.
How is the story about the angel justified?
Its not. Its special pleading.
neveruse513 2 years ago
Swoon Theory: Three days encased in bandages would have suffocated Him.
SwordSwinger617 2 years ago
unlikely as how the disciples may be fooled, it can't be put out the the questioning just because you say it is unlikely.
GodForb1ds 2 years ago
you cant prove that jesus was crusified or resurected...Your only like 14 go and make some friends and do somthing a normal kid would do.
Rush1013 2 years ago
Well done - Great Video: However it all comes down to ones personal faith in Jesus Christ and belief that the Bible is the true word of God. I personally believe this and frankly feel sorry for those who risk their eternity challenging what you and I know is truth. I admire your debating skills and I do hope that you can win over Franzduck as he is an amazingly intelligent young man. He would be a great ambassador for Christ.
GospelOutreach 2 years ago
Thanks.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
"I personally believe this and frankly feel sorry for those who risk their eternity challenging what you and I know is truth."
I feel sorry for you that you have been scared into irrational faith by a 2000 year old fairytale. You dont "know" its the truth you believe its the truth.
spenceII 2 years ago 2
I fell sorry for you, since all you can do is make fun of a kid younger than you because you can't refute any of his arguments.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I think you'll find spenceII is actually answering GospelOutreach.
GospelOutreach isn't a kid, and what's more isn't making any argument for spenceII to refute.
He made a statement, spenceII replied with his on statement.
I admire that you are making these videos at such a young age, but don't use your age to defend yourself before someone uses it against you.
spenceII didn't make fun of you. And if you ask him nicely I'm sure he'll gladly refute GospelOutreach
Widgetas 2 years ago
Sorry, because when it goes to my comment box, it doesn't say that it's a reply to anyone, so I misread it.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
you dont realy listen to people who do refute your arguments, so why should i waste my time.
spenceII 2 years ago
Nobody has ever addressed a single point in this video. Don't make excuses.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
This isnt the first of your videos that ive watched. You often disregard my comments and the comments of others when the comment points out a flaw in your argument.
spenceII 2 years ago
If when I die, I find that I was wrong and there is no heaven or hell, I will have lived a great life and lost nothing. However if I am right and you are wrong, you will have lost eveything.
GospelOutreach 2 years ago
Pascal's wager - easily debunked.
"you will have lost eveything" - what if *you* have chosen the wrong god?
Widgetas 2 years ago
Well, Christianity is really the only religion that stands up to criticism.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Ok that's just funny.
I think I might have to bow out now.
Widgetas 2 years ago 2
lol no it doesit stand up
at least sun worshiper can see there god
noliesundead 2 years ago 3
GospelOutreach:
I dont think having faith as a 'cover' incase heaven and hell are real is a genuine reason to change my beliefs.
spenceII 2 years ago
next time please tell us the Pocahontas story.....
againstMORONS 2 years ago
no school today aaronk???
madhobbit 2 years ago
I'm on spring break.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
An empty tomb doesnt prove the jesus resurection story. It's like me saying there was a lion in my back yard but it escaped, there isnt a lion in my back yard so that proves that one escaped. Its not rational.
spenceII 2 years ago
I didn't claim that an empty tomb alone proves the resurrection, it's just one step in building a case for it.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I agree aaron
rkolegendkiller31 2 years ago
It was found that the name of jesus had been etched into the 'coffin' of Jesus at a later date than the other names......... thats it in a nutshell, subject to correction ------- I too am too lazy lol
Abidan1817 2 years ago
follow the bouncing ball, written and spoken by mmmm what did you say I missed it
xspacie 2 years ago
Franz Duck just got owned!
warriorchristian1994 2 years ago
He hasn't even debunked any thing I've said.
FranzDuckVideos 2 years ago
I wasn't supposed to debunk what you said in your intro.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
A collection of books chosen by the church all say that Jesus rose from the dead. That is no surprise. That followers believed is no proof. Heaven's Gate followers gave their lifes for their beliefs. That doesn't mean their beliefs were true. 500 witnesses... named what? that gave their own independent accounts? no.
DancingRabbit52 2 years ago
I'm very impressed.
StutteringDave 2 years ago
Thanks, dude.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Are you homeschooled?
wheeler1028 2 years ago
No.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
i no what, we dont we just accpted the fact, WE already died and where all already in Hell!
hobosliveson 2 years ago 2
oh noes, he cited Reasonable faith.
yeah, you're probably gonna own him.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Thanks.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I'm sure the Christians are scurrying just as desperately to try and debunk this claim as they did with the Shroud of Turin's carbon dating analysis.
Oh no! We can't be wrong! ;_; I am uncomfortable with change.
rba718 2 years ago
No Christian claims that the Shroud of Turin is actually real evidence, except the very ignorant ones.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
No research required. Just search it on google. It's already been established as not Jesus' Tomb.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
You see, as it turns out, the Lost Tomb of Jesus wasnt lost at all. It wasnt the tomb of Jesus either. Instead, it was the Talpiot Tomb, discovered by archaeologists real ones — more than 25 years earlier. It had long since been analyzed, and the results published in a scholarly journal. The conclusion of the experts was that it was a fairly standard cave tomb of a wealthy Jewish family of the first century.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
No, Christianity was not disproved. That documentary has been refuted by dozens of people. Just go to google and search "The lost tomb of Jesus debunked".
aaronk1994 2 years ago
You seriously need to look up the difference between primary, secondary and contemporary sources. Seriously please look it up. My fiancée has a PHD in early Christian history and the emergence of the modern church including the historical Jesus; again please look up contemporary sources before making such a factually flawed video!
mothball667 2 years ago
Wow, you sure refuted the whole video right there.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I believe you're talking about the Shroud of Turin, I think it's called that anyway. They found a cloth and it showed what many religious people claimed to be the face of Jesus.
However, scientists reviewed it and carbon dated it back to between 1200-1300 AD. A lot of religious people started questioning the carbon dating method but heh, go figure.
rba718 2 years ago
just a Question
Which would you put first, what you know of history or yr faith
hobosliveson 2 years ago
You can't really have one without the other. If you can historically invalidate the resurrection then Christianity would have to be abandoned.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
"You can't really have one without the other. If you can historically invalidate the resurrection then Christianity would have to be abandoned."
The site Answers In Genesis and Craig state explicitly that they let the Holy Ghost (read: their gut feeling) overrule any fact.
MrFacet 2 years ago
My faith.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
if yr willing to put yr faith over history, then showaly others will do the same.... basicly for all we know the 12 people you spoke of put their faith in insted of history....
hobosliveson 2 years ago
Which pretty much means that you'll never change the idea you had in the first place.
Any information that comes to light is secondary in your opinion?
Would that not mean that your faith/beliefs boil down to the first book you ever read/got told about?