I do not doubt if the gospels, were written around a descent time of hisory after the events, but the fact is there is no reason to accept the miracles, or to believe god had any part writting the gospels, if such beings exist. It was a common practice of ancient the Greco-Roman world to deify leaders, and to add mythology to their story.
Here's the best metaphor I can come up with for theism vs. atheism:
Theism: finding puzzle pieces, not liking what the image ends up being, and deciding instead to paint an image that you want to look at and calling it real.
Atheism: finding puzzle pieces and putting them together with other puzzle pieces until you've got an image that you didn't make up.
Not so much theism vs atheism as it is religious though vs the scientific method, which are the respective bases. Religious thought comes from the basic knee-jerk reaction are brains make when we try to recognize an unfamiliar pattern. The scientific method is a more complicated, time-consuming method that one has to be trained in. Basically, religious people are intellectually lazy and damn proud of it.
Here are a few historical understandings of crucifixion. It was invented by the Babylonians, who gave it to the Persians, who gave it to Alexander, who gave it to the Carthaginains who introduced it to the Romans, but for all its movement, its theme was always the same, a punishment for rebellion, not heresy. Any one caught taking a body down would be beaten and punished. It was a piece of theatre to show subject peoples, that Rome ruled here, and would not tolerate rebellion.
Not really. Peter and Paul were both killed between 64-67 ad, so their writings are prior to 67 ad. Acts talks about both without mentioning their deaths, so is earlier than 67 ad. Acts calls itself the second writing of Luke, so his gospel was written even earlier. The other gospels mention the prophecy of the destruction of the temple without mentioning its fulfillment, showing they were written before 70 ad. Look up Good news magazine, when was the new testament written.
The gospels were not written 50-60 years after the events. Some were being circulated within 20 years.
Some of the best reasons for believing what was written about Yahshua (Jesus) were given by his apostles. After falling apart upon his death and being near to scattering, most ended up being martyred for their faith in him. How many people are willing to be tortured to death for what they know is a lie?
@tooltime9901 "that's a bit of an overstatement. see Profmth's video "did the disciples die for a lie?"
His main arguments seem to center on lack of proof for the martyrdom of some of them. Near the end of his 4th though, he says that if all were martyred, it would not prove the resurrection, but it would only show their belief that it happened. That belief was not in what they heard about, but what they saw. That means they would have died for either a lie, a delusion, or the truth.
@tooltime9901 the creed in corinthians -pauls letters, can be dated to with 2-5 years of the execution of jesus. Now you know why why dont trust atheists to give impartial dating of works from antiquity
@Treefrogs2 The earliest available Christian texts are the letters of the apostle Paul. Scholars date his epistles from approximately 50 to 60 C.E. Therefore, many individuals think that there is at least a twenty year gap between the death of Christ and the earliest Christian writings. However, most do not realize that the epistles of Paul contain creedal summaries of early Christian beliefs which possibly date as early as 35-40 C.E
" How many people are willing to be tortured to death for what they know is a lie? "
???
Do you know any, single sample of such event?
Some people, the completetly deluded, deceived fools, are dying by millions throughout the ages for, what they believe it’s TRUE.
On every battle field, in every torturing dungeon, wrapped around with the explosives, flying the planes into the buildings – misleaded, primitive, religious idiots – are dying for, what they believe it's true!
I wasn't talking about people hundreds of years later, but people who knew and followed him. Not only apostles were martyred, but many others who were alive during his lifetime.
@pat34lee "most ended up being martyred for their faith in him. How many people are willing to be tortured to death for what they know is a lie?"
Are you kidding?
There are plenty of historical and contemporary examples of people who were willing to lay down their lives for their religious leaders. And NONE of these leaders had supernatural origins or powers!
The apostles strong faith in no way proves the miracles of the New Test or that Jesus was of supernatural origin. It's a very weak claim.
@pat34lee "best reasons for believing what was written about Yahshua (Jesus) were given by his apostles". WHAT APOSTLES?? what's your evidence for this?
"ended up being martyred for their faith " AGAIN, ARE YOU SURE? HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE SOURCES OF THESE MARTYRDOM LEGENDS??
Early gospels??? REALLY???? Do you know who Marcion is?? do you know who Simon Magus was and his relationship with Paul and Marcion?
@hexusziggurat Because the majority of the world is theist and we atheists have to live with them and we don't understand why they believe in fairytales as if they were facts. But to answer the question more directly; There's nothing wrong with studying something fictional. I'm sure you've enjoyed a book or movie before that you didn't believe was literally real. And what is the alternative? Just ignore everything we don't believe in? We'd be fucked if we did that.
@TekLok I understand some indulgence in fiction, I can definately relate. I am just left in wonderment at the voracity with which the militant atheist deosn't let up. Maybe theres something to the fact that the majority of world is theist. We could both agree on some great fictional titles. What I will never concede is God, nor will i conceed Jesus. I would just think that as an atheist you'd want to be making the most of of your limited "lifetime" as you could, instead of "fighting/arguing".
@hexusziggurat Because religious peopole won't let us live our lives in peace. THey're always trying to get laws passed based on their religious views, teach our children stupid creationist junk, killing innocent children in wars they believe thier god supports, etc. they won't let anyone in peace until ALL beliee as they do. it is a curse and a threat to our lives and not to be taken lightly even though we know it's shit and don't beleive in it.
@theherdmentality hmmm you pretty have said "generalization", "majority voters are bad", "teaching about alternative viewpoints is bad", "killing people is bad (children is worse) especially when done by religious people (majority)" "they should be stopped by not letting them be in peace since they won't leave others in peace"....and a curse and threat!!?? what!? "we know its crap (generalization)"...who's we?
@theherdmentality another assumption "atheists vs. theists" why are the versus each other? People with differing viewpoints have lived in harmony for eons....its usually when people who are militant radicals feel they need to prove some point by hurting another (emotionally or physically) thats when bad things happen. I already know which camp you belong to.
@hexusziggurat christians have ALWAYS been quietly or outright killing other groups largely based on what they belive their religion says to do, so that peace and harmony is a bullshit statement. Like i said, I'd leave religious folks alone if they would leave me the hell alone and keep their stupidity and religiosity to themselves instead of trying to make laws based on thier religion or use my tax dollars to fund wars they beleive god told them tto
@zlotyz so much time and energy? how many time do you think it takes to make 2 or maybe 3 ten minutes long videos a week? let's make a guess about the average time. 30 minutes+5 minutes (parts that he'll probably cut in some vids)+10 minutes editing+15 min rendering (that depending of his PC)+10 minutes uploading+5minutes adding tags etc etc... that makes (30+5+10+15+10+5)x3=225 minutes. 225/60= 3 hours 75 minutes. Hours per week: 168. You don't make a good approach regarding time in my opinion.
[cont] the defacto leader ahead of James and Peter? Seems much more reasonable that the Gentile/pagan churches Paul started up just won the political/ideological war...and then literally KILLED the competition...at least the few stragglers that managed to survive Nero's persecution.
[cont] and Peter was the only one w/enough hair on his nuts to make a move and was told to stand down. Jesus was an insurrectionist who THOUGHT he was mashiach, failed in his mission, and Gamaliel (the LEADER of the Pharisees) took an ecumenical stance. Now why would Paul, as supposed Pharisee, be working for the Sadducee traitors? Why would he take a murderous stance, opposite his supposed philisophical mentor (Gamaliel)? Why would a Jew from a throughly Pagan/Hellenized town become [cont]
[cont] didn't do it. Thus creating an opening for the disciples who were cowards in the face of Roman power. Why did the Romans send a cohort of soldiers? A cohort is 1/10th of a Legion. A legion = 5500 soldier (cohort = 550) after a ragtag group of nobodies? Sounds like they thought they were going to have a fight on their hands. James and John ('boanerges' - sons of thunder), Simon the Zealot (zealots = insurrectionists), Judas Isacariot (iscariot = sicari = dagger = assassin) [cont]
I think the best explanation is that the Romans and Sadducees collaborated to take the body of the tomb and dump it elsewhere. When Jesus threw his 'temple tantrum' it almost cost the Sadducees their post. Remember they were APPOINTEES to the position of High Priests and were not kohanim. They were the equivalent of the jews working w/the Nazi's which is why the Pharisees HATED them. It's the perfect alibi as they exhonerate themselves of guilt, blame the disciples who knew they [cont]
pleonrhyme! Jesus did not rise from the dead! this man talking is more saved than you! God is not the author of "Vampirism"....The church fathers were "mad dogs" in long robes who hated God and the Holy Bible....
i agree. But Jesus still loves him, and where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. I pray he finds the Lord, or moreso responds when the Lord finds him.
Some of the best evidence comes from negative writings about it. Here is one who set out to disprove it. Sir William Ramsay, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians
The problem with apologists trying to use Irenaus is twofold. First, we have the telephone game. That is the old kids game of whispering something into someones ear, they whisper it into someone elses' and so on down the line and at the end, the message is almost always completely garbled. In the case of Irenaus it goes like this: Eusebius says that Irenaus said that Polycarp said that John said what he related was true.
Second, John said it was true, so it is true? Please.
Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well he could." (the 'Hebrew language' referred to by Papias has often been interpreted as Aramaic)
The problem, of course, is that there ARE no Gospels in Aramaic. Further, Eusebius held Papias in such little regard that he wrote that he was " a man of small mental capacity"
ninio, check out my channel and you will see where I have come from. If you have questions and wish to debate logically, then I am excellent in that regard. What is the number one reason why you think you are unable to believe? Because you know as well as I do, that its not really a choice as many Christians would like to believe... And where do you rate yourself on a scale of 1-10?
eddie, must you follow me everywhere? Your like a disciple of mine...or a puppy dog ;-) How cute!!! You just follow me around and reinforce my positions with your comments. Thanks again....but please make sure you hit the newspaper this time.. Last time you made quite a mess... lol lol lol
Yes religion is a form of mental illness... The Likes of Isaac Netwon, Mendel, Tesla, LeMaitre, Einstein, Godel, Hawking, Darwin...etc.. etc.. in addition to being mentially ill, since they were not atheists, were also the greatest geniuses the world has ever know. But then again, the atheist community had George Carlin....and boy was he funny.... ;-)
hahahah LOL Have you ever read anything of those persons you mentioned? Einstein was a pantheist, Hawking is a self proclamed atheist (a believer can be confused by some of his books), and Darwin almost abandoned his faith after his daughter's death, and always critized the Christian faith (on sundays didnt go to church also).
"wish to debate logically, then I am excellent in that regard"
ninio, reread my statement please. I simply said they were not atheists, and they were not by their own admission. So if you are going counter my logic, please respond to what I wrote, not what I did not write. Thanks.
Even that i dont think Religion is a mental illness, i think that is 100% based on indoctrination (aka brainwashing)
But the fact that those persons where believers or not, does that make any difference? I could go ahead and say Hitler was also a Christian, but i know that faith was not his ambition to power (and the killings).
My point is, without indoctrination and 2000 years old fairy tale books, you have nothing.
Victor- your stats were defintely pulled out of your bum, but thats OK. All I can tell you is that people who really believe in God do so not because of blind faith or choice, they do so because they are compelled to everyday by the complexities of Grace interwined in their lives. This means they get daily, tangible affirmatioins that God is present in their lives in the simple and profound ways. Have you ever bothered to ask a Christian why they believe? I was once atheist/agnostic, ask me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
tooltime- If you want to find God for yourself, then do it. I was like you most my life until I made a final decision to seek God out with all my heart and if I did not find Him-- be done with Him once and for all... And all I can say is that when you take a position like that and mean it, and really search for God, you will find Him every time. But are you really searching, are you open to the possibility, which conclusion do you want to reach? Please stop by my channel to talk,,, peace..
Its very clear that you dont listen what he has to say. Instead you tell an atheists to seek something he doesnt believe it exists. Its like if i told you: "You have to seek Allah, but you REALLY have to seek for him!
Read your comment before you publish them, you sound like a deaf religious blatant.
ninio- just because you don't believe in something,doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The question is not whether you should just arbitartily believe in God? The question is that if someone told you that you could find God behind that closed door, would you bother to open it or would you just turn yourback and walk away? I am telling you that if you want to find God, like I did and have, its so simple... You just have to desire it, seek it, and remain humble in the process. I was once atheist.
Someone mentioned this before to you, but if God is omnicent and omnipotent, why (we, simple mortals) have to seek for him? That doesnt make any sense, and what do i gain for seeking God? I have several religious friends and none of them show some noticeable befefit. For you faith is a virtue, for me its crap.
The thing is i DONT NEED HIM, and there is not a single shred of evidence he ever existed, until he reveal to me i'll keep Atheist.
ninio- we don't seek God because God is incapable of revealing Himself to us. We seek God because he is worth the journey. God has hidden himself in this world (others would say His presence is all around you, regardless) and will reveal Himself to you, when you seek Him. Faith is a a gift from God and it is overwhelming when you first receive it. They don't call it Amazing Grace for nothing. A whole new world and existence becomes evident, one that you never saw before. Its true. Try...
God is incapable of revealing to us? If he created everything in the first place that assumption makes no sense. The funny thing is every Christian have very different opinions about that, how can you trust your feelings (because after all thats all it is) without asking if this is possible?.
The bible clearly states that God is omnipotent and omnicent. How do you explain new life forms showing up on earth when he is incapable of showing himself to us? Thats very contradictory.
ninio, I didn't say God wasn't capable of revealing to us. .. I thought my point was clear. The reason we seek God has nothing to do with his ability to reveal Himself to us. We seek God because the journey is the reward even before the destination is arrived. Do you understand what I mean? Some would say God's majesty is all around us, others would disagree. What I am telling you is that a much more personal experience with God is available to you,, should you want it. It happened to me
If you want to debate with Atheists, please read what we write to you and try to comment in response to that, and all the objections we are presenting to you where dodged by your "mental gymanstics" as tooltime call them.
Basically all your arguments are 100% faith based, wich is extremely subjective for any religious individual, and most likely will contradict other religions or even fellow Christians
ninio, I'm going to be equally straight and honest with you as well. I was trying to cut to the chase and tell you that you don't have to wonder about God and choose your faith position. I am telling you that if you want to know if God is real or not, its all in your hands. I was once just like you, for most my life-atheist/agnostic... I know your hurdles well, extremely well.. But the thing I never knew was that God proves Himself to atheists when they seek Him humbly and in earnest.
Niniomigrania, trumped your point already, did you miss that? Ill copy and paste what he said, in case you didnt see it ""You have to seek Allah, but you REALLY have to seek for him!" there you go, if you dont get that im sorry for you, I was going to just give you a thumbs down, but your blatant disregard for ninio's comment provoked me to personally comment.
The 4 gospels circulated anonymously for about 100 years until Irenaeus mentioned them by name and the reason is that as they began to circulate, it took time for people to buy them as history and like you say, after enough time, it became an embarrassment to say that the 4 were anonymous and thus, authors were created. 100 years! no one really cared. The funny thing is that Irenaeus argues that there can only be 4 gospels. Like there must can only be 12 disciples!
Ha. Ha. The point is that they totally undermine your arguments, as Papias proves Matthew and Mark, and the Muratorian fragment proves Luke and John. All four were accepted, and pre-Irenaeus. Allusions to the gospels are universal in the early church writers.
Your entire argument for some apostolic link rests upon hearsay. And worse, it's hearsay across CENTURIES! It isn't like I said Kabane said this. It's Tertullian said (writing 300 years later) that Papias said... Hearsay of the worst kind. Yet you seem to find this convincing.
I'll say it again since you seemed to misunderstand it.
Irenaeus (ca 180CE) is the first to refer to the 4 gospels BY NAME. All other references pre-180CE do not mention authorship.
Haven't you heard my discussion on the ascription of Annals to Tacitus?
Why is hearsay unreliable? It's merely secondhand information. Hearsay is a useful rhetorical term, but we use secondhand information all the time in history, so show me why I can't use it according to the historical method.
Why should I listen to a child who has just reached puberty? You have already demonstrated that you do not love truth, but you do love protecting your pet beliefs so much that you willfully ignore the telltale evidence that Christianity is false.
The reason you can't use it is because orthodox Christians have been willfully altering the texts and willfully lying and filling in blanks to buttress their origins (much like you are trying to do). It is not to be trusted.
So, when you turn 18 I'll quit calling you a child. :) hehehehhe You are still a boy! A shaver. A youth. A whipper snapper. The thing I wish you could change is your arrogance. You need to be more humble and quit trying to play the impress my friends game. But mostly, stay open to ideas even if they are directly opposed to your worldview because you may one day, like me, find that Christianity is false.
I think it's puh pie us (papias) and eye ruh nay us (Irenaeus). Certainly not Ignatius! hahah
But you are correct. The gospels need to exhibit the signs of veracity and they fail at all points. Mark is based on Homer, the OT stories and the earliest Christian savior figure, Jesus and he blended them together to create his fiction which Matthew copied almost completely verbatim then Luke copied both Mark AND Matthew and all 4 contradict each other on main points and small points.
As long as your religion doesn't harm people, compel you to harass them with your beliefs, limit human advancement or just generally turn you into a cunt you can believe what you want from me.
I'm a theist but I choose my own morals and my religion isn't anti science.
And I have a lot more atheist friends than other theists (Other than Satanism and heathenism weirdly) because with them it's just.
"You're a theist? Whatever you're into, just don't shove it down my throat and we're cool."
Why does everyone feel the need to assert their beliefs on others, I am a Christian and I do not feel the need to convince anyone to agree with me. What I will say however is that it is difficult to deny that many people who become Christian improve in kindness, in giving and in social behaviour. Is it so wrong to have differing beliefs about religion and anything else? I think not. We all want answers and will find them somewhere.
As long as your beliefs don't denounce science. I'm mostly fine with spirituality (though I think believing that you have the absolute truth is dangerous and arrogant at times), but the problem arises when people like VFX come out saying that his belief in god somehow destroys science entirely. If it weren't for people like Kent Hovind, I'd venture to say the whole militant atheist movement wouldn't really exist. If it did, it'd be much smaller and less aggressive.
No offence but I have to call bullshit there ModernRelik, in my own social circle I've noticed the opposite, becoming annoying and whiny about our own beliefs and trying to 'save' us to the point it's just harassing your friends and been so annoyed with them we've had to try and exclude them.
I'll admit I'm in a rare position with several of my friends being (Understandably) anti Christian.
You do have a point. I was trying to say that even though I have certain beliefs, I would never try to push it onto someone else. I'm sorry that you've come across people like that as it's wrong for them to be harassing you and your friends no matter what they believe. I have a distaste for religous people forcefully preaching their beliefs as it just makes them look bad. You seem like a level headed person to me and I'm glad you've given me your thoughts on the matter, cheers thatmansonkid.
The author of what has been called the book of Luke did not claim to be an eyewitness to everything in the first gospel, but used the word we was used
in Acts (which is by the same author)
often when it comes to the when Paul was on the move in his ministry.
Not really much a refutation. The validity of the Gospels has little if anything to do with a robust apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus. Even unbelieving historians understand this. Explain instead the survival of the claim until the penning of the canonized Gospels as well as why anyone would follow a crucified messiah otherwise? The Jews had a normal MO for this and it was not to claim the now dead messianic hope has come back to life, it was to follow someone else, usually a relative.
if you're going to ask for an explanation of the survival of the resurrection claim, then perhaps you'ld care to explain the survival of Mormonism and Scientology. My point is survival of a claim is not necessarily evidence for the validity of that claim.
We are talking about the survival of a historical claim which itself has nothing to do with the survival of a religion. I am not using that argument for the claim of religious truth. That would be to get into the significance of that claim, which is another thing all together. Again, I am speaking about the claim of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event. Respectfully, do you understand the irony of a crucified messiah? Something must explain this historical claim.
Yes, of course I understand the irony in the context of what Jews expected of a Messiah and the ignominy they attached to crucifixion. My point is that it is unnecessary for Tooltime to "explain" the survival of the claim because no "explanation" can, under the circumstances, rise above the level of unmitigated conjecture.
1st, what do you mean "under the circumstance." 2nd, Real historians have to deal with the detail that the early claimants of the resurrection believed the resurrection actually happened- nothing else explains their actions. The survival of the claim reinforces this. It is not acceptable to just say its not true because I don't think so or to claim the people were not trustworthy. There is a ton of history that is not true if we apply that kind of thinking. Your buying into a fallacy of logic.
No fallacy in logic involved in recognizing that adherents of a belief system rarely just shed their beliefs in light of events that should rationally shake those beliefs. Believers' cognitive dissonance often leads instead to all sorts of rationalizations and reiterpretations of events to preserve the belief system, such as claiming that a dead leader actually overcame the death meted out to him.
Further, in order to offer a comprehensive explanation for the survival of the resurrection story, one would need to put oneself into the cultural milieu and mindset of people who adhered to belief in it. That seems an impossible demand 2000 years after the events purported and in a culture so radically different than Roman Judea. We could scarcely be more alien to that world if we had just stepped off a spaceship from Alpha Centauri.
Understanding cultural milieu is a necessity. We cannot understand everything but we can understand enough to make some critical assessments. Even you apparently believe you understand their cultural milieu with your assessment that they were making "all sorts of rationalizations and reinterpretations." Your seem to again be falling prey to a fallacy of logic. That is, since we cannot *fully* understand the cultural milieu then we cannot understand or analyze any claims made by that culture.
There was no logical fallacy nor an implied understanding of the cultural context. I merely mentioned that cognitive dissonance among "believers" in the face of evidence of false belief is a common human response and that rationalization to relieve cognitive dissonance is also common. The comment had nothing whatsoever to do with a particular cultural milieu and everything to do with how human minds function, independent of cultural context.
How in the world is applying a cognitive generalization not about understanding the cultural context? You are analyzing the data and believe they are relieving cognitive dissonance (the content of which you have not even described). If anything the cultural influences would have led them to a very different conclusion than to make up the resurrection.
It seems odd to you because you apparently are inclined to accept, whole hog, their contention that a physical resurrection occurred. Since my contention is that assertions are not in themselves evidence of validity, you are perhaps experiencing the cognitive dissonance I have been discussing. The physical ressurrection of a human being is an extraordinary claim, and it appears to be backed up only by rumor and hearsay.
And though many, for their own unfathomable reasons, find the idea of a physical resurrection gratifying, that in no wise constitutes evidence for the validity of such beliefs. It is quite simply, a vox populi fallacy.
Some people find belief in UFOs, alien abductions, and Big Foot personally gratifying. That says nothing about the reality of UFOs, alien abductions and Big Foot.
Yet another fallacy. Just because people choose to believe some things that are not true because the are gratifying then anything that is gratifying must not be true- hmmm. Also, I am not sure why you arrive at the idea that the claims of the resurrection were necessarily gratifying. Another cultural assumption? You are choosing to put tight constraints on something you choose not to believe. If you just don't want to believe it fine, but don't use bogus logic to try to support your claims.
another bloated puffed up by knowledge arguement. Someone who thinks deeply tries real hard to come off as intelligent. He just goes around and around empty points. I used to share his point of view...but I'm glad I don't anymore. I'm not confused anymore. But these same dizzy arguemnets makes me tired.
This is not a refutation. Its a confused attempt at a refutation without support and erroneous claims based on out of date scholarship upon which there has never been any such "consensus" nor even much support for as you claim. It amounts to little more than, "I don't like what his arguments".
It's funny how the very "majority scholarship" that Christians use to try to prove the resurrection is the very thing they deny the worst when saying that the Bible is innerant and absolutely true.
You comment just reminded me of the arrogant inconsistency that Christians have where they are so faithful to one field of science and not another. I don't know your views so I can't possibly accuse you of anything.
I think there needs to be a lot more humility when it comes to history on the atheist and theist side imho. My 2 cents.
The comments below are clearly posted by delusional fools that fail to acknowledge what good points you make in this video. I happen to think you are awesome and one of the most insightful atheists on youtube. Thanks
You don't rule shit. Big corps rule your country and they don't give a shit about you "people". But that's what you've been voting for the last 100 years.
This is why I left Christianity. The 4 gospel accounts of the crucerfixion and resurrection contradict eachother showing that either the story never occurred and that the writers of the gospels could not have possibly been eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. Also, Christianity can be refuted through the influence of Paul, who never met Jesus at all.
The Bible says life started 6000 years ago. Human inteligence has evolved to the point of decoding the whole human genome, and having the hability of analizing fosils to the point of having a highly precise idea of since when they have been around. Every single proof, evidence, points to the fact that life started a bit earlier, like millions of years before.
Human mind as finally surpased religion. This undeniable fact debunks the whole book of the Bible, and leaves it as a mitology book.
Question about one of your refutations. I take it that almost all critical scholars credit many of the gospels as written by Paul. Now paul talks about checking the gospel message with the disciples, working with them in church, and praying for them. Now would you say Paul was making it all up or would you actually attack his authorship?
well you are conflating THE GOSPELS (IE Mathew, mark luke, john) with the gospel (aka "the good news). as far as I know, there is little evidance that Paul was aware of or taught on the basis of THE GOSPELS. that's not to say that they did not exist at the time of Paul (although I would personally contend that they is the case) just that Paul did not teach directly from them or quote them (nearest we can tell from his letters)
Whoops I meant Paul wrote a lot of the new testament. Didn't mean to say gospel. Most critical scholars contend that the gospels and most of the pauline letters are written by those that are claim to have written them.
I see a discrepency between the apologetic claims and the anti-christian claims. One is acting as if none of the new testament is legitate history while the other camp says the majority contend most of it to be true.
I have a question - What do u tell the Christian(s) who will say something to the effect of: "The historical validity of no one refuting the stories of both OT & the NT & that no one said these stories are false" (the people living during the bible)? I had a hard time coming back w/ a good rebuttal on that one. Any suggestions?
I apologize for the way that sentence is structured.
The Christians will (to me) have a SEEMINGLY good defense when the will ask me: Why didn't anyone during when the OT & NT were written, refute the alleged validity of ALL the stories. In other words, no one BACK THEN deemed anything in the bible as a myth (unless I'm wrong, please tell me).
Bede (c. 672 - 735), writing in De temporum ratione "the word "Easter" is derived from Eostre, an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, to whom Eostur-monath, corresponding to our month of April (Latin: Aprilis)"
(1200 BC) The Semitic tribes were not monotheistic. They worshipped a full range of Ugaritic gods, the "Sons of El". The Queen of Heaven was named Asherah. (Jeremiah resisted he worship). This was a goddess of fertility and war.
The last tie in is Ishtar, goddess of love and war.
Peter...you made some mistakes here. You said in this video that I mentioned the Canonization of the NT, which I never did....I simply never did. I would never argue that just because it isn't in the canon it must be authentic or trusted. That would be a stupid argument. People who see your video are going to think I argued this my friend. And I didn't.
Not only a minor point, but a point that IF you had made that arguement would have strengthened it among Christians. Of course being that I'm banned from commenting on your videos I can only take your word on the claim that you didn't make that arguement. I don't watch videos made by fools who ban people.
I do not doubt if the gospels, were written around a descent time of hisory after the events, but the fact is there is no reason to accept the miracles, or to believe god had any part writting the gospels, if such beings exist. It was a common practice of ancient the Greco-Roman world to deify leaders, and to add mythology to their story.
KevZen2000 6 months ago
Here's the best metaphor I can come up with for theism vs. atheism:
Theism: finding puzzle pieces, not liking what the image ends up being, and deciding instead to paint an image that you want to look at and calling it real.
Atheism: finding puzzle pieces and putting them together with other puzzle pieces until you've got an image that you didn't make up.
TheTexanCanadian 9 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian
Not so much theism vs atheism as it is religious though vs the scientific method, which are the respective bases. Religious thought comes from the basic knee-jerk reaction are brains make when we try to recognize an unfamiliar pattern. The scientific method is a more complicated, time-consuming method that one has to be trained in. Basically, religious people are intellectually lazy and damn proud of it.
OsirisLord 9 months ago
LOL hexusziggurat blocked me because I was destroying him in pm's...
TheTexanCanadian 9 months ago
Here are a few historical understandings of crucifixion. It was invented by the Babylonians, who gave it to the Persians, who gave it to Alexander, who gave it to the Carthaginains who introduced it to the Romans, but for all its movement, its theme was always the same, a punishment for rebellion, not heresy. Any one caught taking a body down would be beaten and punished. It was a piece of theatre to show subject peoples, that Rome ruled here, and would not tolerate rebellion.
LouisPlume 1 year ago
If you took a drink every time tootime says "basically" you'd be pretty sloshed by the end.
Naiant 1 year ago
arguably less than 5 years from jesus's death
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@tooltime9901
Not really. Peter and Paul were both killed between 64-67 ad, so their writings are prior to 67 ad. Acts talks about both without mentioning their deaths, so is earlier than 67 ad. Acts calls itself the second writing of Luke, so his gospel was written even earlier. The other gospels mention the prophecy of the destruction of the temple without mentioning its fulfillment, showing they were written before 70 ad. Look up Good news magazine, when was the new testament written.
pat34lee 1 year ago
The gospels were not written 50-60 years after the events. Some were being circulated within 20 years.
Some of the best reasons for believing what was written about Yahshua (Jesus) were given by his apostles. After falling apart upon his death and being near to scattering, most ended up being martyred for their faith in him. How many people are willing to be tortured to death for what they know is a lie?
pat34lee 1 year ago
@pat34lee "The gospels were not written 50-60 years after the events."
plenty of reasons to doubt that.
"most ended up being martyred for their faith in him."
that's a bit of an overstatement. see Profmth's video "did the disciples die for a lie?"
tooltime9901 1 year ago 4
@tooltime9901 "that's a bit of an overstatement. see Profmth's video "did the disciples die for a lie?"
His main arguments seem to center on lack of proof for the martyrdom of some of them. Near the end of his 4th though, he says that if all were martyred, it would not prove the resurrection, but it would only show their belief that it happened. That belief was not in what they heard about, but what they saw. That means they would have died for either a lie, a delusion, or the truth.
pat34lee 1 year ago
@tooltime9901 the creed in corinthians -pauls letters, can be dated to with 2-5 years of the execution of jesus. Now you know why why dont trust atheists to give impartial dating of works from antiquity
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 The earliest available Christian texts are the letters of the apostle Paul. Scholars date his epistles from approximately 50 to 60 C.E. Therefore, many individuals think that there is at least a twenty year gap between the death of Christ and the earliest Christian writings. However, most do not realize that the epistles of Paul contain creedal summaries of early Christian beliefs which possibly date as early as 35-40 C.E
Ulfvaldr2012 1 year ago
@Ulfvaldr2012 "contain creedal summaries " yes I agree. the dating varies somewhat, however the creed is very near the ressurrection event
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
@Treefrogs2 Stiil this cant not be considered "First hand accounts", and there is still not historical evidance out side of the bible.
Ulfvaldr2012 1 year ago
@pat34lee
" How many people are willing to be tortured to death for what they know is a lie? "
???
Do you know any, single sample of such event?
Some people, the completetly deluded, deceived fools, are dying by millions throughout the ages for, what they believe it’s TRUE.
On every battle field, in every torturing dungeon, wrapped around with the explosives, flying the planes into the buildings – misleaded, primitive, religious idiots – are dying for, what they believe it's true!
Polonaise2008 1 year ago
@Polonaise2008
I wasn't talking about people hundreds of years later, but people who knew and followed him. Not only apostles were martyred, but many others who were alive during his lifetime.
pat34lee 1 year ago
@pat34lee Mark was the first of the gospels WRITTEN DOWN and it wasn't done until about 70 CE. that's 40 years after the death of Jesus.
lautz73 11 months ago
@pat34lee "most ended up being martyred for their faith in him. How many people are willing to be tortured to death for what they know is a lie?"
Are you kidding?
There are plenty of historical and contemporary examples of people who were willing to lay down their lives for their religious leaders. And NONE of these leaders had supernatural origins or powers!
The apostles strong faith in no way proves the miracles of the New Test or that Jesus was of supernatural origin. It's a very weak claim.
sammy2trees 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pat34lee "best reasons for believing what was written about Yahshua (Jesus) were given by his apostles". WHAT APOSTLES?? what's your evidence for this?
"ended up being martyred for their faith " AGAIN, ARE YOU SURE? HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE SOURCES OF THESE MARTYRDOM LEGENDS??
Early gospels??? REALLY???? Do you know who Marcion is?? do you know who Simon Magus was and his relationship with Paul and Marcion?
sirdelrio 2 months ago
@zlotyz Why do so many supposed or fake christians spend so much time and energy following a false belief system?
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok why do so many atheists spend so much time on something they don't believe in?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Because the majority of the world is theist and we atheists have to live with them and we don't understand why they believe in fairytales as if they were facts. But to answer the question more directly; There's nothing wrong with studying something fictional. I'm sure you've enjoyed a book or movie before that you didn't believe was literally real. And what is the alternative? Just ignore everything we don't believe in? We'd be fucked if we did that.
TekLok 1 year ago
@TekLok I understand some indulgence in fiction, I can definately relate. I am just left in wonderment at the voracity with which the militant atheist deosn't let up. Maybe theres something to the fact that the majority of world is theist. We could both agree on some great fictional titles. What I will never concede is God, nor will i conceed Jesus. I would just think that as an atheist you'd want to be making the most of of your limited "lifetime" as you could, instead of "fighting/arguing".
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
@hexusziggurat Because religious peopole won't let us live our lives in peace. THey're always trying to get laws passed based on their religious views, teach our children stupid creationist junk, killing innocent children in wars they believe thier god supports, etc. they won't let anyone in peace until ALL beliee as they do. it is a curse and a threat to our lives and not to be taken lightly even though we know it's shit and don't beleive in it.
theherdmentality 9 months ago
@theherdmentality hmmm you pretty have said "generalization", "majority voters are bad", "teaching about alternative viewpoints is bad", "killing people is bad (children is worse) especially when done by religious people (majority)" "they should be stopped by not letting them be in peace since they won't leave others in peace"....and a curse and threat!!?? what!? "we know its crap (generalization)"...who's we?
hexusziggurat 9 months ago
@hexusziggurat atheists vs. theists. is it that hard to figure out who i am or what i am agianst?
theherdmentality 9 months ago
@theherdmentality another assumption "atheists vs. theists" why are the versus each other? People with differing viewpoints have lived in harmony for eons....its usually when people who are militant radicals feel they need to prove some point by hurting another (emotionally or physically) thats when bad things happen. I already know which camp you belong to.
hexusziggurat 9 months ago
@hexusziggurat christians have ALWAYS been quietly or outright killing other groups largely based on what they belive their religion says to do, so that peace and harmony is a bullshit statement. Like i said, I'd leave religious folks alone if they would leave me the hell alone and keep their stupidity and religiosity to themselves instead of trying to make laws based on thier religion or use my tax dollars to fund wars they beleive god told them tto
theherdmentality 9 months ago
@theherdmentality "christians have ALWAYS been quietly or outright killing other groups largely based on what they belive"
sure are quite a few murderers running around free then.
hexusziggurat 9 months ago
I agree.
KingCold1999 1 year ago
you spend too much time refuting the crew cut
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
EPIC FAIL
HIGHLANDERxMCLAMBIE 1 year ago
@zlotyz so much time and energy? how many time do you think it takes to make 2 or maybe 3 ten minutes long videos a week? let's make a guess about the average time. 30 minutes+5 minutes (parts that he'll probably cut in some vids)+10 minutes editing+15 min rendering (that depending of his PC)+10 minutes uploading+5minutes adding tags etc etc... that makes (30+5+10+15+10+5)x3=225 minutes. 225/60= 3 hours 75 minutes. Hours per week: 168. You don't make a good approach regarding time in my opinion.
DocStrange0123 1 year ago
[cont] the defacto leader ahead of James and Peter? Seems much more reasonable that the Gentile/pagan churches Paul started up just won the political/ideological war...and then literally KILLED the competition...at least the few stragglers that managed to survive Nero's persecution.
Freethinker7718 1 year ago
[cont] and Peter was the only one w/enough hair on his nuts to make a move and was told to stand down. Jesus was an insurrectionist who THOUGHT he was mashiach, failed in his mission, and Gamaliel (the LEADER of the Pharisees) took an ecumenical stance. Now why would Paul, as supposed Pharisee, be working for the Sadducee traitors? Why would he take a murderous stance, opposite his supposed philisophical mentor (Gamaliel)? Why would a Jew from a throughly Pagan/Hellenized town become [cont]
Freethinker7718 1 year ago
[cont] didn't do it. Thus creating an opening for the disciples who were cowards in the face of Roman power. Why did the Romans send a cohort of soldiers? A cohort is 1/10th of a Legion. A legion = 5500 soldier (cohort = 550) after a ragtag group of nobodies? Sounds like they thought they were going to have a fight on their hands. James and John ('boanerges' - sons of thunder), Simon the Zealot (zealots = insurrectionists), Judas Isacariot (iscariot = sicari = dagger = assassin) [cont]
Freethinker7718 1 year ago
I think the best explanation is that the Romans and Sadducees collaborated to take the body of the tomb and dump it elsewhere. When Jesus threw his 'temple tantrum' it almost cost the Sadducees their post. Remember they were APPOINTEES to the position of High Priests and were not kohanim. They were the equivalent of the jews working w/the Nazi's which is why the Pharisees HATED them. It's the perfect alibi as they exhonerate themselves of guilt, blame the disciples who knew they [cont]
Freethinker7718 1 year ago
On Youtube amazing video series on"uvideosu" channel "Resurrection Of Jesus - Astounding Proof!"
in this video are the scientists who are making these revelations and they are using the latest technology!
bratygurl14 1 year ago
pleonrhyme! Jesus did not rise from the dead! this man talking is more saved than you! God is not the author of "Vampirism"....The church fathers were "mad dogs" in long robes who hated God and the Holy Bible....
ariela333 2 years ago
This guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
clnow709 2 years ago
i agree. But Jesus still loves him, and where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. I pray he finds the Lord, or moreso responds when the Lord finds him.
pleonrhyme 2 years ago
Check out what he says then.
Glacies12 2 years ago
Some of the best evidence comes from negative writings about it. Here is one who set out to disprove it. Sir William Ramsay, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians
MayonR 2 years ago 2
Jesus was a turtle, he didn't die at all, he just slowed his heartbeat and breathing so everyone thought him dead.
So simple!
thatmansonkid 2 years ago
Irenaus:
The problem with apologists trying to use Irenaus is twofold. First, we have the telephone game. That is the old kids game of whispering something into someones ear, they whisper it into someone elses' and so on down the line and at the end, the message is almost always completely garbled. In the case of Irenaus it goes like this: Eusebius says that Irenaus said that Polycarp said that John said what he related was true.
Second, John said it was true, so it is true? Please.
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
Papias:
Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well he could." (the 'Hebrew language' referred to by Papias has often been interpreted as Aramaic)
The problem, of course, is that there ARE no Gospels in Aramaic. Further, Eusebius held Papias in such little regard that he wrote that he was " a man of small mental capacity"
Godshoulddie 2 years ago
this shit was votebotted just because the Christian's can't argue against Tooltimes points.
conman2317 2 years ago 17
@conman2317 they can't...or they don't want to bother?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
what?!? what brand of crack you smoke brah??? J/K.
Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle...
1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother...
2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God...
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men...
Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God...
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...
Make an argument from what isnt and ignore what is there.
iamundergrace 2 years ago
"Make an argument from what isnt and ignore what is there."
~sarcasism
iamundergrace 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure I can find a religious book and quote from it.
Theronguardaaah 2 years ago
fuck those bots, fuck them.
*****
omriee 2 years ago 4
ninio, check out my channel and you will see where I have come from. If you have questions and wish to debate logically, then I am excellent in that regard. What is the number one reason why you think you are unable to believe? Because you know as well as I do, that its not really a choice as many Christians would like to believe... And where do you rate yourself on a scale of 1-10?
davlupi 2 years ago
"wish to debate logically, then I am excellent in that regard"
ha! dont flatter urself davlupi. ur not that logically gifted as far as i can see. the fact that ur a christian testifies to that.
eddieindahouse 2 years ago
eddie, must you follow me everywhere? Your like a disciple of mine...or a puppy dog ;-) How cute!!! You just follow me around and reinforce my positions with your comments. Thanks again....but please make sure you hit the newspaper this time.. Last time you made quite a mess... lol lol lol
davlupi 2 years ago
Your like a disciple of mine...or a puppy dog ;-) How cute!!!
---------
just trying to help u with ur mental illness, thats all. religion is a form of mental illness in my opinion.
eddieindahouse 2 years ago
Yes religion is a form of mental illness... The Likes of Isaac Netwon, Mendel, Tesla, LeMaitre, Einstein, Godel, Hawking, Darwin...etc.. etc.. in addition to being mentially ill, since they were not atheists, were also the greatest geniuses the world has ever know. But then again, the atheist community had George Carlin....and boy was he funny.... ;-)
davlupi 2 years ago
einstein wasnt religious, and yes intelligent people can be mentally ill (in one form or another)
eddieindahouse 2 years ago 15
hahahah LOL Have you ever read anything of those persons you mentioned? Einstein was a pantheist, Hawking is a self proclamed atheist (a believer can be confused by some of his books), and Darwin almost abandoned his faith after his daughter's death, and always critized the Christian faith (on sundays didnt go to church also).
"wish to debate logically, then I am excellent in that regard"
Yes, i see that... LOL.
niniomigrania 2 years ago
nini, read the conversation i had with davlupi on his channel comments lol
eddieindahouse 2 years ago
ninio, reread my statement please. I simply said they were not atheists, and they were not by their own admission. So if you are going counter my logic, please respond to what I wrote, not what I did not write. Thanks.
davlupi 2 years ago
Even that i dont think Religion is a mental illness, i think that is 100% based on indoctrination (aka brainwashing)
But the fact that those persons where believers or not, does that make any difference? I could go ahead and say Hitler was also a Christian, but i know that faith was not his ambition to power (and the killings).
My point is, without indoctrination and 2000 years old fairy tale books, you have nothing.
niniomigrania 2 years ago 2
Darwin wasn't religious..
There are accounts of Darwin taking his wife and children to church and taking a walk alone for the duration of the church ceremony.
as a matter of fact his questioning of god's existence was a great cause of marital conflicts.
coolbeens21 2 years ago
was he actually non-religious?
Timmay123456789 2 years ago
Yes he was.
coolbeens21 2 years ago
Victor- your stats were defintely pulled out of your bum, but thats OK. All I can tell you is that people who really believe in God do so not because of blind faith or choice, they do so because they are compelled to everyday by the complexities of Grace interwined in their lives. This means they get daily, tangible affirmatioins that God is present in their lives in the simple and profound ways. Have you ever bothered to ask a Christian why they believe? I was once atheist/agnostic, ask me.
davlupi 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
tooltime- If you want to find God for yourself, then do it. I was like you most my life until I made a final decision to seek God out with all my heart and if I did not find Him-- be done with Him once and for all... And all I can say is that when you take a position like that and mean it, and really search for God, you will find Him every time. But are you really searching, are you open to the possibility, which conclusion do you want to reach? Please stop by my channel to talk,,, peace..
davlupi 2 years ago
Its very clear that you dont listen what he has to say. Instead you tell an atheists to seek something he doesnt believe it exists. Its like if i told you: "You have to seek Allah, but you REALLY have to seek for him!
Read your comment before you publish them, you sound like a deaf religious blatant.
niniomigrania 2 years ago 2
ninio- just because you don't believe in something,doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The question is not whether you should just arbitartily believe in God? The question is that if someone told you that you could find God behind that closed door, would you bother to open it or would you just turn yourback and walk away? I am telling you that if you want to find God, like I did and have, its so simple... You just have to desire it, seek it, and remain humble in the process. I was once atheist.
davlupi 2 years ago
This a response to davlupi:
Someone mentioned this before to you, but if God is omnicent and omnipotent, why (we, simple mortals) have to seek for him? That doesnt make any sense, and what do i gain for seeking God? I have several religious friends and none of them show some noticeable befefit. For you faith is a virtue, for me its crap.
The thing is i DONT NEED HIM, and there is not a single shred of evidence he ever existed, until he reveal to me i'll keep Atheist.
niniomigrania 2 years ago
ninio- we don't seek God because God is incapable of revealing Himself to us. We seek God because he is worth the journey. God has hidden himself in this world (others would say His presence is all around you, regardless) and will reveal Himself to you, when you seek Him. Faith is a a gift from God and it is overwhelming when you first receive it. They don't call it Amazing Grace for nothing. A whole new world and existence becomes evident, one that you never saw before. Its true. Try...
davlupi 2 years ago
God is incapable of revealing to us? If he created everything in the first place that assumption makes no sense. The funny thing is every Christian have very different opinions about that, how can you trust your feelings (because after all thats all it is) without asking if this is possible?.
The bible clearly states that God is omnipotent and omnicent. How do you explain new life forms showing up on earth when he is incapable of showing himself to us? Thats very contradictory.
niniomigrania 2 years ago
ninio, I didn't say God wasn't capable of revealing to us. .. I thought my point was clear. The reason we seek God has nothing to do with his ability to reveal Himself to us. We seek God because the journey is the reward even before the destination is arrived. Do you understand what I mean? Some would say God's majesty is all around us, others would disagree. What I am telling you is that a much more personal experience with God is available to you,, should you want it. It happened to me
davlupi 2 years ago
Im going to be straight up honest with you here:
If you want to debate with Atheists, please read what we write to you and try to comment in response to that, and all the objections we are presenting to you where dodged by your "mental gymanstics" as tooltime call them.
Basically all your arguments are 100% faith based, wich is extremely subjective for any religious individual, and most likely will contradict other religions or even fellow Christians
Here we try to debate using reason, not faith
niniomigrania 2 years ago
ninio, I'm going to be equally straight and honest with you as well. I was trying to cut to the chase and tell you that you don't have to wonder about God and choose your faith position. I am telling you that if you want to know if God is real or not, its all in your hands. I was once just like you, for most my life-atheist/agnostic... I know your hurdles well, extremely well.. But the thing I never knew was that God proves Himself to atheists when they seek Him humbly and in earnest.
davlupi 2 years ago
Niniomigrania, trumped your point already, did you miss that? Ill copy and paste what he said, in case you didnt see it ""You have to seek Allah, but you REALLY have to seek for him!" there you go, if you dont get that im sorry for you, I was going to just give you a thumbs down, but your blatant disregard for ninio's comment provoked me to personally comment.
coolbeens21 2 years ago
The 4 gospels circulated anonymously for about 100 years until Irenaeus mentioned them by name and the reason is that as they began to circulate, it took time for people to buy them as history and like you say, after enough time, it became an embarrassment to say that the 4 were anonymous and thus, authors were created. 100 years! no one really cared. The funny thing is that Irenaeus argues that there can only be 4 gospels. Like there must can only be 12 disciples!
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Wrong. Ever hear of the Muratorian canon and Papias?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
No. Never heard of them.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Ha. Ha. The point is that they totally undermine your arguments, as Papias proves Matthew and Mark, and the Muratorian fragment proves Luke and John. All four were accepted, and pre-Irenaeus. Allusions to the gospels are universal in the early church writers.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Your entire argument for some apostolic link rests upon hearsay. And worse, it's hearsay across CENTURIES! It isn't like I said Kabane said this. It's Tertullian said (writing 300 years later) that Papias said... Hearsay of the worst kind. Yet you seem to find this convincing.
I'll say it again since you seemed to misunderstand it.
Irenaeus (ca 180CE) is the first to refer to the 4 gospels BY NAME. All other references pre-180CE do not mention authorship.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Haven't you heard my discussion on the ascription of Annals to Tacitus?
Why is hearsay unreliable? It's merely secondhand information. Hearsay is a useful rhetorical term, but we use secondhand information all the time in history, so show me why I can't use it according to the historical method.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Why should I listen to a child who has just reached puberty? You have already demonstrated that you do not love truth, but you do love protecting your pet beliefs so much that you willfully ignore the telltale evidence that Christianity is false.
The reason you can't use it is because orthodox Christians have been willfully altering the texts and willfully lying and filling in blanks to buttress their origins (much like you are trying to do). It is not to be trusted.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Ad hominem and appeal to motives. You're a Doherty parrot. It's not like you've done extensive research.
Prove it.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
and you're an ill-informed child.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
The child thing is an ad hominem. It's a fallacy. Reply to the arguments.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
How old are you, Kabane? Just answer truthfully, please, without your normal rhetoric.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
I am sixteen years old.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
So, when you turn 18 I'll quit calling you a child. :) hehehehhe You are still a boy! A shaver. A youth. A whipper snapper. The thing I wish you could change is your arrogance. You need to be more humble and quit trying to play the impress my friends game. But mostly, stay open to ideas even if they are directly opposed to your worldview because you may one day, like me, find that Christianity is false.
TruthSurge 2 years ago 3
It's the fact that you consistently implied that this somehow renders my arguments invalid.
I am not arrogant. I don't do what I do to stroke my own ego, I could care less about my own ego.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I think it's puh pie us (papias) and eye ruh nay us (Irenaeus). Certainly not Ignatius! hahah
But you are correct. The gospels need to exhibit the signs of veracity and they fail at all points. Mark is based on Homer, the OT stories and the earliest Christian savior figure, Jesus and he blended them together to create his fiction which Matthew copied almost completely verbatim then Luke copied both Mark AND Matthew and all 4 contradict each other on main points and small points.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
accusing the church fathers of lying...thats always the desperate last attempt isnt it 'o they are just lying'
Antisyncretism 2 years ago
My reply to this video is uploading, and my replies to the rest are coming soon.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
As long as your religion doesn't harm people, compel you to harass them with your beliefs, limit human advancement or just generally turn you into a cunt you can believe what you want from me.
I'm a theist but I choose my own morals and my religion isn't anti science.
And I have a lot more atheist friends than other theists (Other than Satanism and heathenism weirdly) because with them it's just.
"You're a theist? Whatever you're into, just don't shove it down my throat and we're cool."
thatmansonkid 2 years ago
well said
im an atheist but i just tell my theist friends just dont try to pressure me towards it... then fine
Gooshnads 2 years ago
Why does everyone feel the need to assert their beliefs on others, I am a Christian and I do not feel the need to convince anyone to agree with me. What I will say however is that it is difficult to deny that many people who become Christian improve in kindness, in giving and in social behaviour. Is it so wrong to have differing beliefs about religion and anything else? I think not. We all want answers and will find them somewhere.
ModernRelik 2 years ago
As long as your beliefs don't denounce science. I'm mostly fine with spirituality (though I think believing that you have the absolute truth is dangerous and arrogant at times), but the problem arises when people like VFX come out saying that his belief in god somehow destroys science entirely. If it weren't for people like Kent Hovind, I'd venture to say the whole militant atheist movement wouldn't really exist. If it did, it'd be much smaller and less aggressive.
tjbrownj 2 years ago
agreed
nicholasweakland 2 years ago
No offence but I have to call bullshit there ModernRelik, in my own social circle I've noticed the opposite, becoming annoying and whiny about our own beliefs and trying to 'save' us to the point it's just harassing your friends and been so annoyed with them we've had to try and exclude them.
I'll admit I'm in a rare position with several of my friends being (Understandably) anti Christian.
thatmansonkid 2 years ago
You do have a point. I was trying to say that even though I have certain beliefs, I would never try to push it onto someone else. I'm sorry that you've come across people like that as it's wrong for them to be harassing you and your friends no matter what they believe. I have a distaste for religous people forcefully preaching their beliefs as it just makes them look bad. You seem like a level headed person to me and I'm glad you've given me your thoughts on the matter, cheers thatmansonkid.
ModernRelik 2 years ago
The author of what has been called the book of Luke did not claim to be an eyewitness to everything in the first gospel, but used the word we was used
in Acts (which is by the same author)
often when it comes to the when Paul was on the move in his ministry.
JonahTorn 2 years ago
dude....Jesus died for you and He loves you. That is truth in itself.
shanelmarie 2 years ago
dude.... sing a different tune, if he doesn't believe the Bible is true then he won't believe you.
Gameplayr8891 2 years ago
did u read the bible or are you going off what someone told you?
There is a difference
nicholasweakland 2 years ago
Not really much a refutation. The validity of the Gospels has little if anything to do with a robust apologetic for the resurrection of Jesus. Even unbelieving historians understand this. Explain instead the survival of the claim until the penning of the canonized Gospels as well as why anyone would follow a crucified messiah otherwise? The Jews had a normal MO for this and it was not to claim the now dead messianic hope has come back to life, it was to follow someone else, usually a relative.
makariosoneone 2 years ago
if you're going to ask for an explanation of the survival of the resurrection claim, then perhaps you'ld care to explain the survival of Mormonism and Scientology. My point is survival of a claim is not necessarily evidence for the validity of that claim.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
We are talking about the survival of a historical claim which itself has nothing to do with the survival of a religion. I am not using that argument for the claim of religious truth. That would be to get into the significance of that claim, which is another thing all together. Again, I am speaking about the claim of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event. Respectfully, do you understand the irony of a crucified messiah? Something must explain this historical claim.
makariosoneone 2 years ago
Yes, of course I understand the irony in the context of what Jews expected of a Messiah and the ignominy they attached to crucifixion. My point is that it is unnecessary for Tooltime to "explain" the survival of the claim because no "explanation" can, under the circumstances, rise above the level of unmitigated conjecture.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
1st, what do you mean "under the circumstance." 2nd, Real historians have to deal with the detail that the early claimants of the resurrection believed the resurrection actually happened- nothing else explains their actions. The survival of the claim reinforces this. It is not acceptable to just say its not true because I don't think so or to claim the people were not trustworthy. There is a ton of history that is not true if we apply that kind of thinking. Your buying into a fallacy of logic.
makariosoneone 2 years ago
"Your [sic] buying into a fallacy of logic."
No fallacy in logic involved in recognizing that adherents of a belief system rarely just shed their beliefs in light of events that should rationally shake those beliefs. Believers' cognitive dissonance often leads instead to all sorts of rationalizations and reiterpretations of events to preserve the belief system, such as claiming that a dead leader actually overcame the death meted out to him.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
Further, in order to offer a comprehensive explanation for the survival of the resurrection story, one would need to put oneself into the cultural milieu and mindset of people who adhered to belief in it. That seems an impossible demand 2000 years after the events purported and in a culture so radically different than Roman Judea. We could scarcely be more alien to that world if we had just stepped off a spaceship from Alpha Centauri.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
Understanding cultural milieu is a necessity. We cannot understand everything but we can understand enough to make some critical assessments. Even you apparently believe you understand their cultural milieu with your assessment that they were making "all sorts of rationalizations and reinterpretations." Your seem to again be falling prey to a fallacy of logic. That is, since we cannot *fully* understand the cultural milieu then we cannot understand or analyze any claims made by that culture.
makariosoneone 2 years ago
There was no logical fallacy nor an implied understanding of the cultural context. I merely mentioned that cognitive dissonance among "believers" in the face of evidence of false belief is a common human response and that rationalization to relieve cognitive dissonance is also common. The comment had nothing whatsoever to do with a particular cultural milieu and everything to do with how human minds function, independent of cultural context.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
How in the world is applying a cognitive generalization not about understanding the cultural context? You are analyzing the data and believe they are relieving cognitive dissonance (the content of which you have not even described). If anything the cultural influences would have led them to a very different conclusion than to make up the resurrection.
makariosoneone 2 years ago
It seems odd to you because you apparently are inclined to accept, whole hog, their contention that a physical resurrection occurred. Since my contention is that assertions are not in themselves evidence of validity, you are perhaps experiencing the cognitive dissonance I have been discussing. The physical ressurrection of a human being is an extraordinary claim, and it appears to be backed up only by rumor and hearsay.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
Again, by your criteria there are tons of historical events that never occurred then.
makariosoneone 2 years ago
And though many, for their own unfathomable reasons, find the idea of a physical resurrection gratifying, that in no wise constitutes evidence for the validity of such beliefs. It is quite simply, a vox populi fallacy.
Some people find belief in UFOs, alien abductions, and Big Foot personally gratifying. That says nothing about the reality of UFOs, alien abductions and Big Foot.
clairewaldorf2 2 years ago
Yet another fallacy. Just because people choose to believe some things that are not true because the are gratifying then anything that is gratifying must not be true- hmmm. Also, I am not sure why you arrive at the idea that the claims of the resurrection were necessarily gratifying. Another cultural assumption? You are choosing to put tight constraints on something you choose not to believe. If you just don't want to believe it fine, but don't use bogus logic to try to support your claims.
makariosoneone 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
another bloated puffed up by knowledge arguement. Someone who thinks deeply tries real hard to come off as intelligent. He just goes around and around empty points. I used to share his point of view...but I'm glad I don't anymore. I'm not confused anymore. But these same dizzy arguemnets makes me tired.
earjar1 2 years ago
twenty twenty four hours ago
earjar1
wanna be sedated
nothin to do nowhere to go
earjar1
wanna be sedated
skywolf1969 2 years ago
This is not a refutation. Its a confused attempt at a refutation without support and erroneous claims based on out of date scholarship upon which there has never been any such "consensus" nor even much support for as you claim. It amounts to little more than, "I don't like what his arguments".
Keruaran 2 years ago
It's funny how the very "majority scholarship" that Christians use to try to prove the resurrection is the very thing they deny the worst when saying that the Bible is innerant and absolutely true.
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
And this relates to my comment how ?
Keruaran 2 years ago
"And this relates to my comment how ?"
You comment just reminded me of the arrogant inconsistency that Christians have where they are so faithful to one field of science and not another. I don't know your views so I can't possibly accuse you of anything.
I think there needs to be a lot more humility when it comes to history on the atheist and theist side imho. My 2 cents.
LotusGreenX 2 years ago 2
In other words, it doesn't. Thanks.
Keruaran 2 years ago
"In other words, it doesn't. Thanks."
Smart ass.
LotusGreenX 2 years ago 2
Another good series. But watch them go ape shit when you point all this out.
GWR3440 2 years ago
Wow, Undertaker202, what a pussy.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
The comments below are clearly posted by delusional fools that fail to acknowledge what good points you make in this video. I happen to think you are awesome and one of the most insightful atheists on youtube. Thanks
brittanymlove 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree Tool Time you come off as a pompous ass. Therefore who is going to listen to your argument?
leondias480 2 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Who invented greek mythology? There are plenty of ancient greek scriptures on the whereabouts of the greek gods. Does it mean they are real?
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago 2
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
NOW I've clicked down your comment for being such a pompous asshole.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
You're the kind of stupid asshole that makes us Europeans think most Americans are plain retarded.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
You don't rule shit. Big corps rule your country and they don't give a shit about you "people". But that's what you've been voting for the last 100 years.
JennyFarlopez 3 years ago 2
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
do you believe in UFO's?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
"Clement I lived AD 95 and wrote that Mark wrote the teachings of Peter and when Peter learned of it, he gave it his stamp of approval"
Clement I lived AD 95
Peter allegedly died in circa 64 ad
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
Comment removed
Undertaker202 3 years ago
This is why I left Christianity. The 4 gospel accounts of the crucerfixion and resurrection contradict eachother showing that either the story never occurred and that the writers of the gospels could not have possibly been eyewitnesses to Jesus' life. Also, Christianity can be refuted through the influence of Paul, who never met Jesus at all.
shortydeemac 3 years ago
Demonic influenced intellectualism at its best or should i say worst
brucjr01 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible says life started 6000 years ago. Human inteligence has evolved to the point of decoding the whole human genome, and having the hability of analizing fosils to the point of having a highly precise idea of since when they have been around. Every single proof, evidence, points to the fact that life started a bit earlier, like millions of years before.
Human mind as finally surpased religion. This undeniable fact debunks the whole book of the Bible, and leaves it as a mitology book.
tubbe911 3 years ago
Question about one of your refutations. I take it that almost all critical scholars credit many of the gospels as written by Paul. Now paul talks about checking the gospel message with the disciples, working with them in church, and praying for them. Now would you say Paul was making it all up or would you actually attack his authorship?
darkforce333 3 years ago
well you are conflating THE GOSPELS (IE Mathew, mark luke, john) with the gospel (aka "the good news). as far as I know, there is little evidance that Paul was aware of or taught on the basis of THE GOSPELS. that's not to say that they did not exist at the time of Paul (although I would personally contend that they is the case) just that Paul did not teach directly from them or quote them (nearest we can tell from his letters)
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Whoops I meant Paul wrote a lot of the new testament. Didn't mean to say gospel. Most critical scholars contend that the gospels and most of the pauline letters are written by those that are claim to have written them.
I see a discrepency between the apologetic claims and the anti-christian claims. One is acting as if none of the new testament is legitate history while the other camp says the majority contend most of it to be true.
darkforce333 3 years ago
Good video.
I have a question - What do u tell the Christian(s) who will say something to the effect of: "The historical validity of no one refuting the stories of both OT & the NT & that no one said these stories are false" (the people living during the bible)? I had a hard time coming back w/ a good rebuttal on that one. Any suggestions?
WntrSolstice2012 3 years ago
I apologize for the way that sentence is structured.
The Christians will (to me) have a SEEMINGLY good defense when the will ask me: Why didn't anyone during when the OT & NT were written, refute the alleged validity of ALL the stories. In other words, no one BACK THEN deemed anything in the bible as a myth (unless I'm wrong, please tell me).
WntrSolstice2012 3 years ago
EASTER SUNDAY IS A PAGAN HOLIDAY
pabon7 3 years ago 7
-_-. Pabon, let's see some evidence.
Kabane52 3 years ago
Bede (c. 672 - 735), writing in De temporum ratione "the word "Easter" is derived from Eostre, an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, to whom Eostur-monath, corresponding to our month of April (Latin: Aprilis)"
(1200 BC) The Semitic tribes were not monotheistic. They worshipped a full range of Ugaritic gods, the "Sons of El". The Queen of Heaven was named Asherah. (Jeremiah resisted he worship). This was a goddess of fertility and war.
The last tie in is Ishtar, goddess of love and war.
smaugfrost 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey tooltime, there are currently multiple apologists at work at tearing this poor excuse for a rebuttal apart.
Kabane52 3 years ago
boring.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
There are 13 tribes by the way-(12 provinces though)
MrFreeThinker 3 years ago
Peter...you made some mistakes here. You said in this video that I mentioned the Canonization of the NT, which I never did....I simply never did. I would never argue that just because it isn't in the canon it must be authentic or trusted. That would be a stupid argument. People who see your video are going to think I argued this my friend. And I didn't.
Veritas48 3 years ago
Not only a minor point, but a point that IF you had made that arguement would have strengthened it among Christians. Of course being that I'm banned from commenting on your videos I can only take your word on the claim that you didn't make that arguement. I don't watch videos made by fools who ban people.
TheNakedAtheist 3 years ago
Hey excellent job on presenting some great hypothesis on this subject. Excellent Series. Very well done.
wayman29 3 years ago