there is contemporary evidence that Jesus lived

[hens0w]

paul could have made it up or the person befor him could have made it up

and anyway dosn't he see jesues in acts could be wrong

any way some one told me that someone told them that the wold would on the 10th of july inless a 1000 or more peple run though mager citys screeming I don't whant the world to end. do you believe that the world will end?

[ChelevSaRa]

You're using the claim that Jesus existed as evidence that he existed.

I hereby claim that Luke Skywalker existed!

There. That's evidence Luke Skywalker existed.

That's the kind of logic you're using there.

[migkillertwo]

possibly the dumbest comment I've read so far today

[ChelevSaRa]

That's it? That's all you have to say?

[NeroFreyr]

I'm an atheist, and i believe Jesus existed. It's basic sociology to know believe that Yeshua was an actual person. Throw out for a minute almost all of Jesus' biography as attested to in the Gospels. The walking on water, resurrection, etc.. Interestingly, there is a corpus of about 120(?) Jesus stuff that are independently attested to those multiple gospels,(Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts...).

[NeroFreyr]

These "Jesus Philosophies" had to come from somewhere. And it looks like it all came from one source based in the Jerusalem area from around 30 a.c.e. Sure, many of Jesus' sayings existed 100s of years before Jesus.But someone had to assemble and dispense the thematically similar and independently attested to set of sayings at around 30 a.c.e. Scholarship will show this is most likely Jesus.

[NeroFreyr]

Maybe the Apostles or some other guy made it all up, some will say. I guess it's plausible, but what evidence is there to show we should favor that theory over a guy named Jesus speaking those words? None. It's baseless. There are countless plausible alternatives to a man named Jesus existing and philosophizing in the streets of Galilee etc, but they have far less evidence then for Jesus.Ask any historian.

[NeroFreyr]

Now, another obvious claim by new age skeptics is their statement of no sources for Jesus outside the Gospels. Even as an Atheist myself, that's a very sad proof of showing ignorance because it's well known that this same Yeshua guy is mentioned in the Koran. Did the muslims make him up as well?

[NeroFreyr]

interesting to me is the fact people are quick to point out that Jesus never existed, but don't have a working hypothesis of how specifically the corpus of Jesus sayings came into existence. HOW? It's fine to knock down an idea, but if YOU DON'T HAVE A VIABLE REPLACEMENT,WHATS THE POINT?

People say Shakespeare didn't write his plays. I think they're wrong, but at least they posit alternative authors and cite the EVIDENCE supporting their hypothesis. This i've never seen with the jesus debukers.

[NeroFreyr]

There's just no sense in Sociology to say Jesus is a myth. Having little evidence for someone's existence does not mean that that person was invented out of thin air. Central to Christian belief is the idea that there was a Jesus-figure of some sort, and according to sociological theory cults start around central figures/prophets/etc.Christian­ity was a cult and it was based around a figure who was claimed to have actually lived in history it is unlikely that "Jesus" was deliber8ly created.

[NeroFreyr]

Arguments can be made to discredit the existence of literally anyone in history. There's a Russian mathematician who claims that everything that was claimed to happen before 1000 A.D.was invented by Jesuits who wanted to rewrite history, and there are many people (mainly Russians) who subscribe to his theory.

The documents of Lucian, Josephus, Tacitus, are highly credible. I know john, bibletruth, and some others try to point out forgery, but note none of them give any Scholar back up.

[NeroFreyr]

In realty, there is not a single Greco-Roman or Tacitean historian. All i've seen is some immature religion basher (johnarmstrong) and some old dude (forbibletruth) attempting scholarship in a very poor manner - People with no Scholar Credentials and no Scholar to back them up. They're useless.

From sociology science (in which i explained), historical documents, and the fact that he is sourced in the Koran. How can Jesus not have existed? How did this whole influence originate?

[bellyofadolphin]

Here's a question for you. Why is Jesus crucified AFTER the Passover in Matt, Luke and Mark but BEFORE the Passover (on the day of preparation) in John?

[Deliratio]

I may be mistaken, but I think in "A marginal Jew", John P. Meier argues that John is most likely correct and the part in Mark is a later interpolation which Matthew and Luke untorfunately copied.

Doesn't have to be correct.

[bellyofadolphin]

If Matt and Luke "copied" an error, doesn't this prove the assertion that the "holy spirit" did NOT guide these men in their writings?

[Deliratio]

No?

[Christus94]

If Mark was written in the late 40s and therefore before 1st Corinthians, is it possible that he got it from Mark?

[migkillertwo]

Paul? no. There's no evidence that Paul knew any of the Gospels.

and Pau clearly states taht this tradition goes back to Jesus himself.

[Christus94]

Thanks

[OccamKant]

So your "evidence" for Jesus existing is that Paul wrote about him in the bible?

So what? Why is that evidence? JK Rowling wrote about Harry Potter too. Doesn't make him real.

A story isn't evidence. It's a story. Something authors do for money. Paul was a wandering preaching lunatic for all we know.

Need something better than stories from the bible for it to be considered evidence.

Show me evidence that the entire bible isn't just a poorly written fiction compendium.

[migkillertwo]

occamkant are you this fucking dumb? the stupidity you displayed in that comment simply is not worthy of a response.

[OccamKant]

Nice work, MK2.

I make a non-stupid comment, and you can't refute it with an actual refutation, so you just become an insulting douche.

Bravo!

[migkillertwo]

"Bravo!"

OccamKant, your comment was laughably stupid. You compared the new testament, a collection of books clearly intended to be historical, to an admittedly FICTIONAL novel. god dammit you're a fucking moron.

OccamKant, I want to ask you a question, are you capable of posting comments which are not full of bullshit? I'm being serious now, I have never once seen a comment of yours (and I've seen a lot of them in various videos) which was not filled to the brim with bullshit.

[OccamKant]

To me, the bible is no more true than harry potter. They're both works of fiction.

You guys try and try to promote the bible as true, but you fail time and time again.

This isn't bullshit, it's real.

Give me EVIDENCE that the bible is true. Give me some experiment I can perform to determine it's validity. Jesus said that if you pray you'll be answered, but that obviously doesn't work.

Is there some other method to prove the bible?

Otherwise, you're just whining.

[migkillertwo]

*checks your youtube profile*

Jesus fucking christ, you're 43 years old?

and I thought people get more wise as they age.

OccamKant, you're a stupid fucking moron, and hence I do not wish to deal with your stupidity. *blocks your ass*

[OccamKant]

I don't care if the NT is "intended" to be real. So is the Koran, SO is the baghva ghita.

I'm sure you don't accept those other works as real. Why should I accept the bible?

What can you do to prove to me that you're right?

[chuckawobbly]

"oh, running away like a little bitch now? "

That is exactly what I'm talking about. You are pathetic. Why would ANYONE want to argue with someone who relies HEAVILY on logical fallacies to prove a point?

You're putting words into my mouth like you're putting artificial FACTS into you're head. You're a brick wall. You have zero evidence, you're only source is an apologist who has no authority on this subject who uses wishful thinking to prove HIS point.

Goddamn it you're retarded.

[chuckawobbly]

History of religion doesn't mean FUCK that he has any credibility when debating serious historical issues, he tried to find your "evidence" failed miserably then bullshitted his way to pretend that there is and like the sheep that you are, fell for it, just like you believe the consciences dependency on brain activity MIRACULOUSLY disappears after death.

You're arguments are based on SILENCE and pulling shit from your ears to diffuse my argument, making you look pathetic. Get over your self.

[chuckawobbly]

any to make me look smarter:

"I have done nothing but present facts to back up my claims, have you? "

What facts? I have and you ignored them. You are STILL using the Bible to prove the Bible. Shame on you. You're religion is a lie, and you have to lie to defend it. For shame.

"wut facts did u show me chucklol?" I used your evidence against you what else? I supplied COUNTLESS scholar links in our Josephus argument, you IGNORED them. Utterly ignored them. You used: ZE BIBLE

[chuckawobbly]

EPIC FAIL mig. Keep spewing forth your shit. You are making me hate apologists even more.

Finish school before you go arguing with people who've finished uni already.

Only sheep need a Shepard. I am walking away from this, I'm tired of arguing quantum physics to a burger flipper.

FYI I had prepared a formal argument in PM until I read you're retarded claim. You're a hypocrite, you ran away from John's video and abused me when I went to bed.

h y p o c r i t e i u m

f a i l u i n u s

[chuckawobbly]

Say what you want, my care factor is and was always zero and dropping. All you're going to do is abuse me back to prove your point. How predictable. What are you, 13?

[migkillertwo]

"EPIC FAIL mig. Keep spewing forth your shit. You are making me hate apologists even more."

well I'm sorry I am inciting your puny atheistic brain to adhere to anti-religious bigotry.

"Finish school before you go arguing with people who've finished uni already."

obviously you didn't put that university education to use, otherwise you woulden't be using this appeal to authority.

[migkillertwo]

"just like you believe the consciences dependency on brain activity MIRACULOUSLY disappears after death."

what?

"You're arguments are based on SILENCE"

how so?

"and pulling shit from your ears to diffuse my argument,"

what argument? you have never once presented an argument for anything in every exchange I've had with you.

[migkillertwo]

"Only sheep need a Shepard. I am walking away from this, I'm tired of arguing quantum physics to a burger flipper."

in case you've forgotten, we're arguing over history, not quantum physics. and what gave you the diea that I'm a "burger flipper"?

"FYI I had prepared a formal argument in PM until I read you're retarded claim." we tried that before, you unfortunately dismissed the article I provided you on hte basis that it was not written by someone with a Ph.D.

[migkillertwo]

"I used your evidence against you what else?" no actually you haven't produced this evidence, all you say is that Habermas has no credibility in science because he's a creationist, well no shit sherlock, he's not a scientist, he's a philosopher.

"I supplied COUNTLESS scholar links in our Josephus argument, you IGNORED them. Utterly ignored them."

perhaps you would care to produce these links. oh, im sorry I blocked you due to your severe case of mental fucktardation.

[migkillertwo]

"he tried to find your "evidence" failed miserably then bullshitted his way to pretend that there is and like the sheep that you are, fell for it,"

chuck, you never once even attempted to refute my argument or Habermas' argument. hell, in every single exchange I've ever had with you, you never address my arguments. all you say is that my sources allegedly lack credentials.

[migkillertwo]

"You're a hypocrite, you ran away from John's video and abused me when I went to bed."

would you care to remind the audience which video this was that I ran away from? I could have sworn I addressed nearly all videos of his relavent to my field of expertise.

[migkillertwo]

"What facts?" perhaps you would care to watch any of my dozens of videos pertaining to the subject.

"I have and you ignored them." in case you have forgotten, "habermas is a creationist" doesn't count

"You are STILL using the Bible to prove the Bible. Shame on you."

I think I will have to do a video on this "argument" because apparently one video by veritas48 isn't enough to dispell this idiocy that plagues the internet.

[migkillertwo]

"History of religion doesn't mean FUCK that he has any credibility when debating serious historical issues," having a Ph.D in history and PHILOSOPHY of religion sure does help. but regardless you seem keen on completely ignoring the arguments I present. but I think I should inform you that his thesis/dissertation was on the resurrection of jesus.

[migkillertwo]

"That is exactly what I'm talking about. You are pathetic. Why would ANYONE want to argue with someone who relies HEAVILY on logical fallacies to prove a point?"

100$ says you cannot actually point to any logical fallacies I used in my arguments

"You're putting words into my mouth"

when did I do such a thing?

"like you're putting artificial FACTS into you're head." I have and I can back up the veracity of said facts.

[migkillertwo]

"You're a brick wall. You have zero evidence,"

I've presented evidence on multiple occasions.

"you're only source is an apologist who has no authority on this subject who uses wishful thinking to prove HIS point."

oh really, well which apologist is that, is that Dr. Habermas, Dr. Craig, mr. Licona (who is a Ph.D cand), Dr. Blomberg, Dr. Wright, Dr. Nash, Dr. Bauckham, Holding, or C.E Price?

"Goddamn it you're retarded." I sincerely hope you've enjoyed not being blocked.

[chuckawobbly]

I'm guttersmacked at how pathetic your attempt refute everything I said was. Woah. Holy shit. Insteading of using legit arguments, you use dogmatic bullcrap claims you made up to cover your self. I really don't know how to respond other than to laugh hard.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait,... You're being serious! Let me laugh harder... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH­AHAHAHAHAHA

[chuckawobbly]

I'm too tired to pick your argument apart, I'll pick this up later tomorrow, I have the day off. I might do this over P.M to avoid the C.Count.

[migkillertwo]

"You rely on strawman fallacy and ad hominum arguments to pull weight to your arguments, I am arguing with a dogmatic theist. Get over yourself." 50$ says you can't even point to one instance where I used strawmen and ad hominem arguments.

[migkillertwo]

"Insteading of using legit arguments, you use dogmatic bullcrap claims you made up to cover your self." I have done nothing but present facts to back up my claims, have you?

"I'll pick this up later tomorrow" oh, running away like a little bitch now?

[chuckawobbly]

I went to bed, I wasn't running away like you've done in the past when you're presented with a paradox.

There ARE no contp sources, yet you claim they're are...still waiting.

You clearly lack the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between History, and philosophy of religion, and history AND philosophy of religion.

You rely on strawman fallacy and ad hominum arguments to pull weight to your arguments, I am arguing with a dogmatic theist. Get over yourself.

[migkillertwo]

"I went to bed, I wasn't running away like you've done in the past when you're presented with a paradox."

when was this?

"There ARE no contp sources, yet you claim they're are...still waiting." watch the fucking video retard.

"You clearly lack the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between History, and philosophy of religion, and history AND philosophy of religion." oh wow, that sure refutes my argument. Habermas still has credentials fucktard.

[chuckawobbly]

You even admit defeat:

"actually he has no credibility in the scientific community because THAT'S NOT HIS FIELD OF EXPERTISE YOU FUCKING MORON! "

I'm the moron? (there is that ad hominum I was talking about) You used Habermas as your source of prove, evidence; I said "no cuz hes a fucktard xian!" u sed "looool but hes a drz lawl!" now you shift gears and agree with me, glad we could work this out.

You still fail.

[migkillertwo]

"I'm the moron? (there is that ad hominum I was talking about)"

yes, actually you are the moron as you did not actually address the arguments habermas or I provided. you simply stated that his arguments are wrong because he works for a creationist university.

"You used Habermas as your source of prove," I merely cited him as my source, citations aren't evidence and I did not deploy them as such.

[chuckawobbly]

* Ph.D., (1976), Michigan State University o Area: History and Philosophy of Religion * M.A., (1973), University of Detroit o Area: Philosophical Theology * B.R.E., (1972), William Tyndale College o Majors: Christian Education, Bible, Social Sciences o Minors: Philosophy, Greek, English and Speech

1981 to present: Liberty University

Position and Title: Distinguished Research Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy and Theology

[chuckawobbly]

To expand on that, first there are zero cont. sources for Jesus your tap dancing around.

Second your source is a creationist philosopher.

[migkillertwo]

"To expand on that, first there are zero cont. sources for Jesus your tap dancing around."

within 150 years of his life, there are over 40 sources on the life of Jesus

"Second your source is a creationist philosopher."

so the arguments posed by a creationist which are not at all related to the issue of creation vs. evolution are invalid? can you say

A R G U M E N T U M

A D

H O M I N E M

?

[chuckawobbly]

Can you say "argumentum von zipper tu appealiano"? You're appealing to authority, who has no authority in the first place. You = fail. Jesus didn't exist.

Habermas, your "source" is a philosopher of Creationism, NOT a scholar, NOT a historian AND uses fake, forged and artificial facts to make his point, you sourcing him gives you the fattest epic fail stamp humanly possible. Come back with REAL arguments or just shut up completely. Hypocrite.

[chuckawobbly]

"within 150 years of his life, there are over 40 sources on the life of Jesus" So is of Allah but you hypocritically denounce that so quickly.

The story of Jesus was forged after his death, evidence of this is in Pauls letters, the gospels, each contradicting each other 40 years later, THEN the "evidence".

You fail to absorb even the simplest of arguments in your own, ironically titled video here. THERE ARE NO CONTP. SOURCES. Show us some, We are still waiting.

[migkillertwo]

"NOT a scholar," he holds a Ph.D in the philosophy of religion, and is the head of the department of philosophy and theology at an accredited american university.

"NOT a historian" yes, actually he is a historian in his own right.

"AND uses fake, forged and artificial facts to make his point," example?

"you sourcing him gives you the fattest epic fail stamp humanly possible."

once again, Habermas IS a credentialed scholar who holds a Ph.D in a relavent field.

[migkillertwo]

"You fail to absorb even the simplest of arguments in your own, ironically titled video here. THERE ARE NO CONTP. SOURCES. Show us some, We are still waiting."

I already provided a contemporary tradition that contains the words of jesus and the fact that he was betrayed. secondly, YOU have yet to cite a professional credentialed historian who agrees with your methodology, that evidence for a figure of history must be contemporaneous with that figure.

[chuckawobbly]

WAIT

I just realised, you just committed the strawman fallacy by distorting my argument. I never created the Ad Hominem argument, I debunked your "credible sources". Which, ironically, you created the ad hominem by insulting me (hence I called you a hypocrite)to give weight to your own argument.

You HAVE to do better than that, if..what you claim is true.

E P I C A N U M

F A I L U R I N O

[migkillertwo]

"Come back with REAL arguments or just shut up completely."

my and Habermas' arguments stand or fall on their own merits. come back when you can actually address the arguments I provide.

"The story of Jesus was forged after his death, evidence of this is in Pauls letters, the gospels, each contradicting each other 40 years later, THEN the "evidence"."

do you have evidence that the epistles and gospels contradict eachother on biographical details of Jesus?

[migkillertwo]

"I never created the Ad Hominem argument, I debunked your "credible sources"."

notice that you did not once address the argument that I provided, you simply asserted that because he's a creationist then he has no credibility as a scholar.

"you created the ad hominem by insulting me"

no actually there was no conclusion, hence not an ad hominem. it was merely a personal attack on you. you on the other hand lobbed ad hominems against Habermas.

[migkillertwo]

"You're appealing to authority," I never once appealed to authority.

"who has no authority in the first place." Habermas holds a doctorate of philosophy in the history and philosophy of religion. he most definitely is an authority on this subject.

"Habermas, your "source" is a philosopher of Creationism"

he's a philosopher of religion, a brilliant one at that.

[chuckawobbly]

Mig. Gary Habermas is an American Christian apologist, theologian, and philosopher of religion.

Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg,

- Wikipedia.

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. My case rests.

[migkillertwo]

chuckawobbly, are you seriously trying to dispute the arguments I presented by saying that Gary Habermas is supposedly uncredentialed? you DO realize that he earned his Ph.D from a perfectly legitimate and respected american university right?

[chuckawobbly]

Dude, they claim they ave 3,000 year old Dinosaur bones, as Dawkins put it "that is an educational disgrace".

They are a CREATIONIST university, they are NOT credible.

He is a creationist Christian, he has zero credibility in the scientific community.

Also, they are an insult to us who have gone to a real university.

[migkillertwo]

chuckawobbly, please don't pull that richard dawkins bullshit. for one, liberty university IS an accredited university. secondly, gary habermas recieved his doctorate from an accredited university. since he's widely published, its most wise to respect him as a serious scholar especially when you yourself are clearly incapable of dealing with his arguments.

[migkillertwo]

"He is a creationist Christian, he has zero credibility in the scientific community."

actually he has no credibility in the scientific community because THAT'S NOT HIS FIELD OF EXPERTISE YOU FUCKING MORON!

[chuckawobbly]

"blah blah hes a creationist" thats all I heard.

Zero confidence in his works.

Your damn right I'm incapable of dealing with his arguments, he's a fucking creationist from liberty university!! UNIVERSITY. CREATIONIST.

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

[migkillertwo]

"Zero confidence in his works." that's called an ad hominem

"Your damn right I'm incapable of dealing with his arguments, he's a fucking creationist from liberty university!! UNIVERSITY. CREATIONIST."

normally I would block you just because of your incessant use of mentally fucktarded arguments, but I'll show just a little bit of mercy.

[chuckawobbly]

I found written in a public cubical the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he talks about the lack of sources for Jesus AND the Gnostic Paul. My source is equally credible to your now! I just lowered my self to your bullshit definition of evidence, now I can argue at your level.

[migkillertwo]

chuck, I have credentialed sources (Habermas earned a real Ph.D from the university of michigan, a respected university).

[Duwami]

The universal consensus of scholars is that Jesus lived. Atheists are boneheads.

[krook22]

I am a Agnostic Atheist but I believe that Jesus lived what I believe is he was a obsessed God lover.(you can believe that Jesus lived and still be a atheist)

[chuckawobbly]

Duwami, which Jesus are you talking about? The Historical Jesus or the Biblical Jesus?

[migkillertwo]

the biblical jesus IS the historical Jesus.

[8WholeThing]

Hi mk2,

What is your opinion of the Ascension story? Luke uses it to segue from his gospel to the Book of Acts. It is also found in Mark but seems to have been added later as the early versions end with the women not telling about the resurrection. Each version of the Ascension story mentions that the Apostles witnessed it but neither Matthew nor John thought it was significant enough to mention.

This question popped into my head a few videos ago and I thought you might have a good answer.

[migkillertwo]

wait, Matthew's Gospel does not mention the Ascension story, only Luke/Acts mentions the ascension of Jesus. im not aware of these "other versions" of the ascension story.

[8WholeThing]

The Ascension story is also at the end of Mark but not in the oldest manuscripts. Those versions lack the last 12 verses, so the story ends with the women being too afraid to tell of the resurrection.

I have read accounts of the Apocrypha that also mention the Ascension but they give different time spans between the Resurrection and Ascension, one as long as 500 days.

[Antisyncretism]

apocrypha isnt Scripture

[migkillertwo]

nor history, it simply is not reliable in reporting the historical jesus.

[8WholeThing]

As for history, why should one be more reliable than another? Scripture tells us that Jesus had to make physical contact to heal people but Peter could heal people by having his shadow pass over them. Is that more believable than the story of Peter resurrecting a smoked fish?

I like your explanations. I hope you will make a video on the reliabilty of Scripture vs. Apocrypha as history, please. Thanks.

[8WholeThing]

The difference between Apocrypha and Scripture is a matter of religious opinion. Some books were rejected because they lent support for other branches of early Christianity. Had one of those branches withered much sooner, or adopted the proto-orthodoxy, their scripture may have been taken as scripture rather than named Apocrypha. Scripture and Apocrypha were determined by council without consensus.

[Antisyncretism]

..sigh..im tired of this conspiracy theory about the council its not suspicious in anyway you would just like to think that

[JohnLArmstrong]

This is the one and only example where Paul quotes Jesus or speaks of a worldly Jesus. It's fairly consistent with other pagan savior-gods and probably an adapted tradition brought into his new religion.

[migkillertwo]

actually John, no its not. in fact, I was hoping you were above this idea that Jesus was a copycat of older "savior gods"

[JohnLArmstrong]

I didn't say he was completely a carbon copy but all fiction draws upon earlier fictions. A bit of pagan ideas of Hell and salvation here, a bit of Judaism there. Religion evolves the same way art does when it's exposed to other cultures. Judea, at the cross-roads of many continents and civilizations, was bound to come up with such a conglomeration at some point.

[migkillertwo]

you just said it was consistent with other pagan savior Gods. this idea that Christianity was an outgrowth, or borrowed extensively from pagan religions though has been abandoned.

[JohnLArmstrong]

QUOTE: "this idea that Christianity was an outgrowth, or borrowed extensively from pagan religions though has been abandoned."

No, it hasn't. The question as to whether or not Jesus existed at all may be a controversy but the pagan elements of Christianity can't be rationally denied.

[migkillertwo]

actually john, there is almost absolutely no controversy within the scholarly community as to whether Jesus existed, in fact, there's no controversy over whether the new testament authors borrowed from pagan mystery religions. it has been near-universally (nothing's ever "universally" anything) abandoned among scholars since the 1940s, and before that time (late 1800s) it was quite popular within scholarly circles.

[JohnLArmstrong]

If your assertion is true about the "scholarly consensus", then I can only assume that these scholars have chosen to ignore the blindingly obvious for some reason. The Bible itself specifies that the Sabbath is on a Saturday but the Christians moved it to the pagan holy day of Sunday, to cite just one example.

Luckily for Christianity, few people have the patience to read the Bible.

[migkillertwo]

John, I am not talking about the beliefs of the post-apostolic fathers, im talking about the beliefs of the authors of the new testament. the reason your thesis (the new testament authors) borrowed from pagans is abandoned is because the scholarship used to support this thesis was shoddy and contrived.

[JohnLArmstrong]

It's based on overwhelming evidence. The OT beliefs don't support the NT. These two tomes have radically different ideas of the afterlife, of Yahweh and of atonement.

On the other side of the argument, I've consistently challenged any proponent of the historical Jesus to offer any evidence that he existed. The response is usually a combination of logical fallacies, the quotation of unreliable scripture and the resuscitation of the forged passage in Antiquities.

[migkillertwo]

how is 1 Corinthians 11:23 unreliable?

[JohnLArmstrong]

QUOTE: "how is 1 Corinthians 11:23 unreliable?"

The NT was altered over time, a point that Ehrman has gone into great detail over. Some of the epistles of Paul are acknowledged to be completely fake. The earliest extant copies of Paul's letters date to the 3rd century. All this and Paul is a self-described liar.

If the "evidence for the resurrection" that you've spoken of is purely the writings of Paul, and that's enough for you, I suggest you don't buy any bridges anytime soon.

[Kabane52]

I've addressed the self described liar point in my response to TAA. The Romans verse is taken out of context. As Wallace rightly notes, a charge of NT interpolation cannot properly be made without textual evidence. You don't even have internal evidence! 2 centuries after the original writing is relatively good. In fact, it's better than almost all other ancient writings!

[migkillertwo]

3rd century hmm? john, that's a time gap of ~150 years. can you name any work of antiquity with such a small time gap?

John, the new testament has 5600 manuscripts. can you name a single work of antiquity with that many manuscripts?

[JohnLArmstrong]

QUOTE: "John, the new testament has 5600 manuscripts. can you name a single work of antiquity with that many manuscripts?"

A lie repeated many times = truth.

[migkillertwo]

john, you don't know what textual criticism is do you? its a cold, hard, and inconvenient fact that the new testament is more reliable in terms of textual reliability than any other work of ancient history

[Kabane52]

This "lie" is actually supported by Metzger and Ehrman in "The Text of the New Testament"

[Kabane52]

Er...Tacitus. Whenever we bring that up, you barf up that procurator/prefect objection which we've beaten to a bloody pulp.

[agnosticman77]

This also is using the Bible to prove the Bible. There is not a single contemporary historian that spoke about Jesus and that is an awkward fact. Again I am not a mythicistwith respect to the historical Jesus, but the Jesus described in the gospels, in it's totality is a myth.

[migkillertwo]

"This is also using..." again, this is highly flawed methodology. first off, the 1 Corinthians 11:23 creed is QUOTED in the bible. second, you can use the bible to "prove" the bible for the simple fact that these were not compiled into a canon until a few centuries after their writing. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John thus count as independent sources which can corroborate eachother.

[agnosticman77]

They do not corroborate each other whatsoever. Everything you've stated here is assumptions and non sequiturs.

[migkillertwo]

I assumed nothing. you're just ignorant of how history works.

[agnosticman77]

Oh please, I'm ignorant? that's funny. Someone like you who believes in angels, demon possesion and people walking on water is a bastian of knowledge. i know quite a bit about how history works. I'm through wasting my time with you. peace out.

[migkillertwo]

"Oh please, I'm ignorant?..." says the one who resorted to an ad hominem fallacy.

[Kabane52]

Don't forget his appeals to ridicule. Saying, "miracels? Psh!" doesn't refute it.

[agnosticman77]

While I appreciate the attempt. I am familiar with habermasses argument here. It is a nice game of connect the dots but is based on assumptions and speculation. I am not a mythisist myself however it is clear to me that Paul had a very different idea of Jesus than presented in the four gospels, as they were written long after the supposed facts.

[migkillertwo]

for one, the Gospels were written less than 20 years after Christ's death (mark) and no more than 70 years after his death (John). Matthew and John were also written by eye-witnesses. secondly, Paul personally met with Peter and James, both eye-witnesses.

[agnosticman77]

That is completely eroneous. While I am not into appeals to authority. Even most fundamentalist scholars admit that Mark was written after ad 70. There is a lot of evidence textually and historicall to show this. Hardcore fundies love to early date the gospels without any proof whatsoever.

[migkillertwo]

no agnosticman, there is absolutely no reason to place any of the synoptics past 70 AD. I however produced positive evidence of an early date for the synoptic Gospels.

[poetsonghotmail]

Nice video, thank you.